When the Truth Confronts You

No one likes to be told or shown that they are wrong. No one. Most of us are quite happy to grasp onto our beliefs despite argument to the contrary. Even if we are confronted with strong evidence that our stated positions are lacking, we will end any sort of debate or conversation with the be all and end all phrase, "Well, we are just going to have to agree to disagree." Such a statement is fine if you are simply disagreeing about an opinion. I mean we can agree to disagree that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream or that pepperoni pizza is better than cheese pizza, but when it comes to matters of deep substance, when it comes to matters of truth, we can’t simply agree to disagree. We must have the courage to argue; to debate; to wrestle; and to even change our minds when presented with evidence that we are wrong.

As Christians, this is particularly so because it follows the nature and teaching of our founder, Jesus. Jesus was not an "agree to disagree" kind of guy. Nowhere in the Gospels do you see Him acquiescing to a point of view that is different by simply agreeing and letting that viewpoint go unchecked. Jesus entered into the dialogue, defined His position–which was God’s position, and then pointed out the error of the other view. It cost Him to be less likeable among certain groups, but it also won Him the admiration of many who saw that He was both impartial and consistent as He taught and proclaimed God’s Kingdom. Today’s Gospel lesson is a perfect piece of evidence showing Jesus’ confrontational nature when it comes to matters of Truth.

Let’s set the context once again as we turn to this encounter between Jesus and the Sadducees. Remember, Jesus had entered into Jerusalem with all the markings of the coming Messiah. He cleansed the Temple pointing out how the Sanhedrin or Jewish Religious High Court had used the Temple for their own selfish purposes instead of using it as a place where all the people of the world were intended to worship. The Sanhedrin took objection to Jesus’ actions and wanted to arrest Him and kill Him, but they could not because Jesus had endeared Himself to the crowds. Arresting Jesus without pretense would have caused a riot amongst the people causing the Romans to intervene thereby causing the Sanhedrin to lose their standing both in the crowd’s eye and in the Romans’ eye. Therefore, they had to discredit Jesus and turn the crowd against Him or show that Jesus was a threat to Rome. Last week, the Herodians and Pharisees took their shot with a question about taxes. This week, the Sadducees throw Jesus a religious curve ball.

Now, unlike the Pharisees and Herodians, the question the Sadducees throw at Jesus is not a life or death question. No one is going to kill Jesus or arrest Jesus based upon Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection. The Sadducees are trying to discredit Jesus by making Him look stupid. Little do they know the consequences that will befall them.

Mark tells us the Sadducees–who do not believe in the resurrection come to Jesus. Now, let me take just a moment to explain why this detail is important. You see, Judaism during the time of Jesus was not a united religion. There were many different groups vying for the heart of the populace. There were Pharisees, there were Sadducees, there were Zealots, there were Esseens, there were Herodians, and so on and so forth. Each of these groups practiced the Jewish faith a little different from the others. Each had various authorities they cited to bolster their positions. All of them agreed on the basic tenets of Judaism, but there were other things they disagreed about vehemently. The resurrection was one of them. Most Jews at the time believed that in the future, God would indeed resurrect those who had died as part of establishing the Messianic kingdom. They gleaned their beliefs from portions of the Psalms, Ezekiel, and the book of Daniel. However, the Sadducees did not buy these arguments. The Sadducees were convinced only by the authority of the Torah–the first five books of the Old Testament. If it could not be found in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy, then it was human ideal and not to be trusted.

The Sadducees were convinced there were no referents to the resurrection in the Torah despite many arguments from the Pharisees to the contrary. The Sadducees were convinced that all of the Pharisaical arguments fell short, and they felt confident that they could show how stupid the belief in the resurrection was. They attempted to use that argument on Jesus.

"Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 20There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children; 21and the second married her and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; 22none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. 23In the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her."

Now, my initial answer to this line of thought would be, "What in the world was that woman putting into her cooking?" I mean, honestly, if I were like the fourth or fifth brother in line, I would have been like, "Uh, no thank you. I would rather take the chance of enduring God’s wrath than marrying her!!" But, perhaps this is beside the point.

The point the Sadducees are trying to get across is a point based in the Torah which God was offering both protection for a woman and protection for the blood line of a family. There are certain stipulations that surround this law in the Old Testament, and should you like to delve into it further, you can read about it in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. We will not do that now. What we will do now is follow the train of thought of the Sadducees. They are basically trying to show the absurdity of this scenario. If the resurrection is real, and if we are married to our spouse in the resurrection, then this woman will have seven husbands. There is no allowance in the Torah for a woman to have seven husbands, therefore the resurrection will not happen.

Jesus responds rather harshly and with a great deal of confrontation, "Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God?" I want you to stop right there for just a moment and contemplate Jesus’ words. I mean, really just let that sentence sink in for just a moment. How in the world would you feel if someone asked you that question? Don’t you know you are wrong because you neither know the scriptures or the power of God? Jesus cuts the Sadducees to the heart because they prided themselves in knowing the Scriptures. They prided themselves in knowing about the power of God, but Jesus says they are ignorant of both, and He does so in two ways.

First, Jesus challenges their premise about being married in the resurrection: "25For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." Now, some of you might be looking at your spouse right now and thinking, "What? I won’t be married to her in heaven? That’s not what I want!" I am sorry to break the news to you. In the resurrection, there will be no need for marriage. We will indeed recognize one another. We will be overjoyed to see one another, but we are entering into a totally different reality. Angels don’t need to marry because they are totally and completely satisfied by the love of God. We will be like that, Jesus says thus nullifying the Sadducees premise and their logic.

But Jesus doesn’t stop there; He continues on with point number two: and as to the resurrection–whether or not it will take place. Jesus points out a critical text in the Torah. It is when God reveals Himself to Moses in the burning bush. God tells Moses, "I AM the God of Abraham. I AM the God of Isaac. I AM the God of Jacob." God does not say, "I was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." No, God IS the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And then Jesus makes another appeal to a belief held by every religious group, "God is the God of the living and not of the dead." If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not to be raised; if they had ceased to exist, then God would not have spoken as if He were still their God! Jesus points this out to the Sadducees, I am sure, much to their dismay.
And then Jesus drives the final nail, "You are quite wrong." "You are way off base." "You do not know what you are talking about."

Oh, imagine Jesus saying that in our cultural milieu today. Imagine Jesus confronting the various religious groups today and saying, "You’ve missed the mark. You are wrong. You don’t understand scripture or the power of God."

You know what most folks would say to Jesus? You know how they would respond?
It’s not hard. We hear the arguments all the time:
"What gives you the right to say that I am wrong?"
"What is the Truth?"
"How do you know the Truth?"
"How do you know your read of Scripture is the right one?"
"We will just have to agree to disagree.
And, of course, Jesus isn’t exactly here to defend Himself. We are. And it is we who bear the brunt of these questions. They deserve some sort of answer as well–particularly if we want to establish Jesus as our authority.

First, we must establish that there is some sort of Absolute Truth. There are some who wish to say that truth is relative or that truth does not exist, but that is an absolutely illogical position to take. How so, you might ask. First off, you cannot start with a self-refuting statement. If you say, "Truth is relative," then the statement "Truth is relative" must be absolutely true. How can that be? Or, if you say, "Truth does not exist," well, then how can the statement "Truth does not exist" be true? It can’t. There must be some sort of Objective Truth giving meaning and, well, truth to our statements.

But now comes the hard part. We can know that there is objective Truth, but we cannot know it objectively. Think about that for a minute. There is objective Truth, but we cannot know it objectively. We are dependent upon that Truth being revealed to us. This is important especially when we get into arguments of a religious nature.

For instance, in the above argument between Jesus and the Sadducees, there are two positions: the resurrection will happen or there is no resurrection. Which of these is True? We have no evidence of resurrection (at least we didn’t at the time)? The two positions are mutually exclusive. They both can be wrong. One can be right, but they cannot both be right. How does one decide? They appeal to the evidence. They appeal to what God has revealed.

As Christians, this is exactly what we do when we enter into arguments of a religious nature. We do not appeal to our own authority. We do not appeal to ourselves. We appeal to Jesus. For if Jesus is who He says He is and did what He said He did, then to use the famous catch phrase of C.S. Lewis: He is either Lord, a lunatic, or a liar.

Jesus, of course, claimed to be the Son of God. He claimed that He was laying His life down for the world. He claimed to be the ransom for many who would reconcile the world unto God. He claimed to be the I AM, God incarnate. He claimed to be the resurrection and the life. He claimed to be Lord of the world. He claimed that God sent Him into the world because God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Folks may say, "Well, that’s not good enough. Just because He said these things about Himself doesn’t prove that He wasn’t a liar or that His followers turned him into something that He was not." Fair enough criticism. But let’s look at the facts because there have been a lot of people who have claimed to be a Messiah. There have been a lot of people who came along in the history including the recent history of humanity who claimed to be God. What happened to their followings? What happened to their followers after these folks died?

Historically, whenever such folks came about, they would raise a following, but when the leader died, all the followers left. No one stuck around. Not so with Jesus. Everyone thought His followers would disband. Everyone thought the things that He taught would go away. But something happened that changed all that. Something happened that showed that Jesus was who He said He was and did what He said He did. That was the resurrection. Jesus was raised from the dead. Oh, sure, there are those who scoff at the notion and say that such a thing is impossible. Might I remind you that even science cannot say that such an event is impossible–they can only say that it is highly unlikely. If you add up all of the cumulative evidence, you must admit that something happened that unexpectedly changed the fortune of the world–that transformed a movement that should have died–that initiated a movement that has now spread throughout the globe. You can’t escape it. You must wrestle with it.

And when you do; when you delve into the resurrection you come face to face with Jesus. You come face to face with the God who died for you. You come face to face with the Truth who will confront you and love you with a love too deep for words. He will tell you you are wrong; that you are a failure; that you have misread scripture and gone astray, but He will also take you into His loving arms and transform you and your life like nothing else can do. Amen.

Fact, Belief, and Truth

If you read through the comments in my Reader's Challenge post, you will see something quite interesting.

I think, I am trying to discuss a fact.

Carl is trying to talk about belief.

The two things are very different.

I stated in one of my sermons that Christianity is unique because it alone of all religions and philosophies states that salvation and the satisfaction of justice comes not through any actions of humankind, but solely through the actions of God.

This is a statement of fact.  It can be falsified rather easily.  If there is another religion that proclaims this, then my statement is untrue.  My statement is not narrow, if it is true anymore than the statement two plus two is four is not narrow.  It is simply a fact.

Beliefs are another matter.  Beliefs are not easily falsified.  For instance:

Christianity claims/believes that Jesus is God in flesh.  Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice of atonement and was raised from the dead.

Islam claims/believes that Jesus was a prophet; he was not the Son of God; he didn't really die therefore was not raised from the dead.

These are two completely contradictory beliefs/claims.

Either they are both false or one is correct.  They both cannot be true.  You cannot say that Jesus was the Son of God and he wasn't the Son of God.  You cannot say that Jesus was raised from the dead and he was not raised from the dead.  Factually, this is impossible.

Similarly, the most basic difference between atheists and theists is the following:

Theists believe there is something beyond this physical universe.

Atheists believe there is nothing beyond this physical universe.

One of these statements is true.  The other is false.  They cannot both be true.

The question is: which one is ultimately true?

The answer is: we don't know for certain.

There is no way to scientifically test whether or not Jesus was the Son of God or if he was raised from the dead.  There is no way to scientifically test what is beyond this physical universe.  You can only make that decision based upon how you read evidence and which authorities you trust.

If you trust that Mohammed is Allah's prophet and his words are true, you will be a Muslim and believe Jesus is not God's Son and that he was not raised from the dead.
If you trust the biblical witness you will be a Christian and believe that Jesus is the Son of God and was raised from the dead.
If you look at the evidence and conclude there is nothing beyond this physical universe, you will be an atheist.
If you look at the evidence and conclude there is something beyond this physical universe, you will be a theist.

There is plenty of room to argue the evidence for these matters.  There is plenty of room for open dialogue and discussion of these things.  Facts can be laid out.  Arguments can be made for the authority of the Koran or the Bible.  Evidence can be pointed out for something outside the universe, and evidence can be pointed out for the non-existence of something outside this universe. Weaknesses of arguments can be pointed out.  Such things can be done because we are dealing with beliefs--points which can be disputed.

But you cannot dispute a fact.
You can show your ignorance.
You can pretend the fact does not exist.
You can uncover evidence to prove that what was thought was fact was indeed wrong.  (Science progresses in just this fashion!)

But in the absence of such evidence, you must admit that a fact is true.

2+2=4
Islam and Christianity have very different beliefs about who Jesus is.
Atheists and Theists have very different understandings about what lies beyond this physical universe.
And Christianity is unique among world religions and philosophies in that it claims that salvation and the satisfaction of justice are brought about by God's action alone and not by our own.

Arguments and Exhortations

This Sunday is Pentecost Sunday--the day the Church remembers the bestowing of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples empowering them to go out and proclaim the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Pentecost is usually one of my favorite Sundays of the Church year.  There are no external trappings like Christmas Trees and presents or bunnies and eggs to deal with.  This Church festival has yet to be co-opted by society, and for this I am thankful.  I am also thankful for the opportunity to wear my red stole--it rarely gets used during the year.  I am thankful to preach about the power from on high that fell upon the disciples upon that day.

As part of my sermon preparation, I read the entirety of Acts chapter two.  There are 47 verses in the chapter, and we will only be publicly reading 21.  Chalk such matters up to time restraints and to those who pick out what texts constitute the Revised Common Lectionary.  I could add additional verses, but lengthy Bible passages plus lengthy sermons can equal mumblings and grumblings.  Better to keep things a bit shorter and sweeter.  :-)

Yet, there is so much in the second chapter of Acts which needs proclaiming.  There is so much which needs examining and revisiting as we see the empowerment of the Church and its initial proclamation as articulated by Peter.  Pentecost happened so that Jesus could be proclaimed!!!

It is worth taking some time to read through Peter's proclamation.  It cut many to their hearts, but I was also struck by another verse included by Luke in this text.  Verse 40:

⁴⁰And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.’  (New Revised Standard Version translation)

"Intriguing," I thought to myself.  Arguments?  Exhortations?  Wasn't it enough just to proclaim the mighty acts of God in Jesus?  Apparently not. 

I decided to dig into the Greek to catch any nuances of the words:

The two words which most concerned me were διεμαρτύρατο (diemartyrato, translated as arguments) and παρεκάλει (parekalei, translated as exhorted). 

Diemartyrato has as its root word "witness."  The "die" adds emphasis, so there is often some wiggle room in translating this word.  Strong's Greek concordance translates it "solemnly testify." 

The King James Bible translates it testify and exhort.

The New International Version translates it warned and pleaded.

As I look at this particular statement, there is a sense of some strongly worded testimony by Peter.  There is a sense of urgency; a sense of working to convince the crowd; a sense of working hard to explain the new reality rooted and grounded in Jesus' death and resurrection.  There is not just a presentation of the events that occurred, but there is a need to explain the reasons for those events and their implications for life.

What is the take home point?

The Church cannot simply be nice to everyone and expect people to come to faith.

The Church cannot simply be engaged in doing justice and expect people to believe in Jesus.

The Church cannot simply say, "Jesus is risen," and expect people to come to faith.

The Church cannot simply say, "Follow these rules because God says so," and expect people to believe in Jesus.

There must be a willingness to engage, argue, exhort, explain, and so on and so forth.  There must be a willingness on behalf of the Church to present the Christian worldview from the beginning and show how that worldview addresses life's biggest questions.  There must be a willingness to show how various worldviews fall short in how they address those questions and exhort others to "save themselves from this corrupt generation."

There's nothing really nice about that last statement.  In fact, it can be seen as pretty arrogant.  It can be seen as pretty exclusive.  And if it is spoken without the proclamation of grace and mercy shown by Jesus on the cross; if it is spoken by someone who looks down one's nose at another while speaking it; if it is spoken in arrogance and self-righteousness, then the message will be lost as well.

The challenge, I think, is to engage the world with great love and compassion with absolutely no compromise in the belief that Jesus is the risen Lord who alone can offer salvation--not only for eternity, but for our world today.  Jesus is the risen Lord who can bring about abundant life--a life of joy, peace, and reconciliation now.  

If you think not, I'm ready to argue.  :-)

Why the Cross? Part 1

(Sunday morning as I was preparing for worship and preaching the following sermon, I was struck with another set of thoughts which needed to augment this piece.  Those thoughts will appear in my next sermon to be posted next week.)

    Jesus said to the disciples, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.’ 45Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day.

    The question that I want to deal with this morning in my sermon is this: why did the Messiah have to suffer and die?  Why did Jesus have to go to the cross?  Why is it that everything in Scriptures led up to that pivotal moment where Jesus had to die and then be raised from the dead?

    This is more than just an academic question.  It’s important because it cuts to the very heart of Christianity and our reason for existing as a Church.  It’s important in our current day and age because there are a lot, and I mean a lot of people who still wonder why Jesus had to die.  There are a lot of people who wonder why the cross was necessary. 

    The bewilderment is nothing new.  The early Church had to deal with folks’ questions about the cross.  St. Paul even says this in 1 Corinthians chapter 1 verse 23, “23but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.”  The cross was a stumbling block to Jews because in the Law it was written that anyone who was hung on a tree was cursed by God.  If Jesus were the Messiah, then He was supposed to be blessed by God, certainly not cursed by God.  The fact that Jesus was hung on a tree caused them to stumble.  As for the Gentiles, it was utter foolishness that God would die.  God was omnipotent, and omniscient, all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal and immortal.  God certainly could not die.  The idea that He would was utter foolishness.  Even then people had a hard time coming to grips with the cross.

    Today, there is much discussion about the cross as well.  Some cannot fathom the idea that God would use such a brutal and bloody method to save the world.  God could have chosen something different.  Some believe the cross is some sort of divine child abuse and cannot grasp that the Father would send the Son to experience such a thing.  Some only give the cross worldly implications and separate the cross from any sort of significance for salvation.  Indeed the cross still spurs conversation in this manner. 

    Yet, in order to truly understand the Gospel, we have to come to grips with the cross.  We have to come to grips with its significance and the reasons, as Jesus said, “it was necessary,” for these things to happen.  Why was it necessary?

    Well, first we have to understand the nature of God.  Now, I know there are many who will say simply and truly, “God is love.”  You are absolutely right.  For the writer John says this very thing in 1 John 4.  “God is love,” John proclaims.  And some folks jump on this and emphasize love.  They then see God in our understanding of love: compassion, kindness, pouring out Himself for us, making us feel good about ourselves–kind of like a Hallmark deity.  Interestingly enough, I’ve been reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Ethics, and in this book, Bonhoeffer says something profound.   He says, we read this all wrong.  We tend to emphasize the word love when we should be emphasizing the word God.  God is love–meaning, if you want to know what love is, you look to God and not vice versa.  It makes perfect sense as the writer John continues in 1 John when he says, “for God is love. 9God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. 10In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. “

    ”Love is that God loves us and sent His Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.”  This is the reason the cross is necessary.  You may still be wondering why?

    Here’s why.  If we need to understand love through God, then we need to understand the nature of God–and God we must understand that God is the One in whom ultimate justice and ultimate mercy come together.  God must be a God of justice, and God must be a God of mercy.  The two cannot be separated.  Here’s why.

    First, we must understand that God is a God of justice.  He has to be. If God were not a God of justice, He would not be worth worshiping.  I mean, let’s think about this for a moment.  Many of you have heard about the atrocities that ISIS is committing in Iraq and Syria.  You have heard the stories about how they have beheaded prisoners, burned prisoners alive, and raped and tortured women.  Imagine if God in heaven looked down upon this and said, “Oh, this is wrong.  You shouldn’t do such things, but hey, I’ll forgive you anyway.  I will take you to be with me and perfect you so that you will never do this again.  You will join me in paradise.”  If you were a perpetrator of such crimes, you might be very comforted by this kind of God; however, if you have even a little sympathy for those who have been victimized by ISIS, you would recoil at such thoughts.  You would recoil at such a God.  A God who forgives without justice is a God who has no compassion on victims–who is not interested in fully righting the wrongs.  Such a God might be forgiving, but such a God does not have love.  There must be justice.

    And in Scripture, it is revealed that God indeed is a God of justice.  There is a promise of recompense and punishment for those who do wrong.  God promises to look with kindness upon the widow and orphan; those who have been pushed to the edges of society.  God promises to right the wrongs that have been committed against the poor and oppressed.  God promises to let His wrath burn hot against such evil and destroy it–no matter how big or how small.

    Now, that last statement should give us pause.  God’s wrath and judgement will burn against injustice and evil no matter how big or how small.  That might cause you to scratch your head for a moment for you might think, “God will also punish small sins?  God will punish say, stealing a piece of candy or disobeying my parents when they tell me no and I do the opposite?  God will punish me if I don’t give offerings to the church?  God will punish me if I tell a little white lie to prevent pain on the behalf of another?”  Why would God do such a thing.  I mean, I’m not like ISIS and killing people or anything.  Why would God’s wrath burn hot against a little sin?

    Just this: on Easter I used the example of the Butterfly Effect or that one tiny change across the globe–a butterfly flapping its wings in Japan–could cause massive changes in Alabama by brining tornadoes.  That illustration still stands, but perhaps it’s a bit abstract.  Let me use another one which may hit closer to home, especially with all you hunters out there.

    When you are sighting in a gun at 25 yards, and you are ½ an inch off, do you say, “Well, I’m close enough.  No need to get things dead center.”?  Of course you don’t.  You can’t accept being off that much.  Why?  Well, because at 50 yards, you are going to be off even more.  At 100 yards you will be off an even greater distance.  At 200 yards you will be far away from the bull’s eye.  At 300 yards, you may miss the target altogether.  The further away you get, the further off you will be.  You’ve got to hit perfection so that as time passes and distance passes, you will still hit the target.  If you aren’t perfect, there will be consequences. 

    God knows this, and He demands perfection.  This is why He treats anger towards another person like murder.  This is why He treats lust like He treats adultery.  You could say that this seems overly harsh, but in reality it’s not.  Why?  Because anger is a condition of the heart–it’s the same condition that leads to murder.  Lust is a condition of the heart–which leads to adultery.  It all starts in the heart as far as God is concerned.  And if your heart isn’t tuned into God and His will, He will judge and let His wrath burn hot.

    You might think two things at this point. #1. You might say, “Well, my heart is tuned to God, and He should give me a break on messing up.”  I respond: If your heart is tuned to God, then why do you tell that white lie?  Why do you not give an offering to the church?  Why do you get angry at another person when you feel slighted?  Here’s why: for those moments; for that time; something else was more important to you than the love of God.  You were afraid of the consequences of telling the truth so your well being took precedence.  You didn’t give because you wanted to hold onto your money, and it replaced God.  You were more concerned with your own feelings of being wronged than offering forgiveness.  In all of these things, God took a back seat, and He did not rule in your heart.  The other thing you might say is this: #2. There is no way anyone can avoid the wrath of God.  It is hopeless.  Might as well give in and enjoy what we can before God burns us to a crisp.  That would be an appropriate response if God were not a God of mercy.

    For if God had no mercy, then we would all be in a pickle.  We would all stand condemned and under His wrath for our failure to live the lives we should live.  And we have no excuse.  I mean, every culture in the world knows and has in its code of conduct that you should treat others as you would like to be treated.  Every culture knows we should care for one another and be fair.  However, just as true of every culture in the world is the fact that it is not done.  We know what we should do, but we do not do it.

    So, God, it seems might be in a bit of a pickle Himself.  His wrath must burn hot against sin.  It must burn hot against us missing the mark.  In order for justice to be served, there must be recompense.  There must be punishment to right the wrongs.  However, if every wrong were righted; if every sin were punished, then all would be condemned and mercy could not be shown.  How can this conundrum be resolved?

    I would like you to now think about how you act when you are wronged by someone else.  I am quite sure that everyone here this morning has experienced such a thing.  You have had someone tell you that they would do something only to renege on their word.  You have had someone say an unkind thing about you.  You have had someone say something that cut you to the heart.  You have entered into an agreement with someone for services or goods and had that person take advantage of you.  How do you respond?

    Most of us cut the other person off physically or emotionally.  Most of us refuse to associate with that other person or institution any longer.  Most of us say, “That’s it.  You have hurt me, and I refuse to have anything to do with you.”  And we don’t, unless an apology is issued–unless restitution is made.  Unless someone acknowledges the pain they caused and feels bad themselves, we will not engage the relationship again.  Unless there is repayment for abuse, we will stay away from the one who harmed us.  Payment, either emotionally or physically is demanded.  It’s the way we operate.  It’s the only way we get justice.  Someone has to pay. 

    Now, if you forgive a person who has harmed you; if you continue in a relationship with another who has treated you badly; who bears the cost.  If forgiveness is extended, then you bear the cost yourself.  You bear the emotional and physical burden.  The other is forgiven, but cost is still borne.  You just take it upon yourself and do not make the other person pay.

    If you have this in your head, I would like you to think now about all the times you have missed the mark.  Think about all the times you were off, even just a little bit.  Think about all the times when you were a ½ inch off at 25 yards but then as time and distance happened you missed the target all together.  Think about such things over the entire span of your life.  Think about the vast population of the world and how they have all missed the mark.  Think about how you have grieved your heavenly Father with such actions.  Think about how much damage has been done because of how we have missed the mark in such a manner.  Think about all that pain and frustration and anger.  Add all of that up.  If you multiply such things by the billions of people who have lived, can you possibly imagine how much wrath is built up?  Can you imagine the amount of anger God must have for our failure to love one another?  What could possibly pay for it?  What could God possibly demand in order to make things right?  What kind of restitution could satisfy the damage we have done?  The price must be extremely high.

    And if God forgives?  If God bears the cost Himself?  If God takes that wrath and absorbs it what kind of payment will make satisfaction?  If God bears His own wrath on our behalf, what could it cost Him?  If God took on human flesh and bore our sin and the cost for that sin Himself, what would that look like?

    The answer can be found at Calvary on a cross.

    For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world but that the world might be saved through Him.

    God incarnate, Jesus bore the wrath of God destined for us.  He offered Himself as payment so that we didn’t have to face what we deserved.  This is why Jesus had to die.  This is why He had to hang on that cross.  This is why the cross saves us. 

    Jesus said to the disciples, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.’ 45Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day.

    Thank you, Jesus for what you have done.  Amen.

Why Change?

Ismael commented on my last sermon, and he asked a very good question:

If I'm doing good and helping other people causing as little harm as I can... why to change?

Why indeed?

Of course, the simple answer is, one shouldn't.  I mean, I think we should all do good and cause as little harm as possible.

But let's delve a little bit deeper.  First, let me ask: what is good?  How do you know what is good?  What is bad?  What is indifferent?

Do you judge it based upon a particular outcome or the results?  Do the ends justify the means?
Do you judge something to be good because there is such a thing as intrinsic good and intrinsic worth?

If there is no God and no transcendent reality, then there is no such thing as intrinsic worth and intrinsic goodness.  That which is good or that which is bad is only a matter of perspective.  (Nietzsche)  I have seen a few attempts to argue for transcendence (Luc Ferry, A Brief History of Thought), but I think they fail to establish any sort of true argument for something beyond; or in other words to get to an "ought" from "is".

And if there is no way to establish something good because it is necessarily good by definition, then one is almost forced to enter into teleological ethics.  (The end result is the most important.)  Of course, teleological ethics rests on the premise that we should do the greatest good for the greatest number, but why should that be the case?  What grounds do you have for suggesting that this ought to govern our thought?  (That is the first problem.)  The second problem comes when the greatest good for the greatest number adversely affects the minority.  It was the greatest good for the greatest number to have slaves do all the agricultural work in the U.S. 200+ years ago.  It was not good for the slaves themselves, of course; but what recourse do you have for proposing that things should change?  The arguments against slavery all came from establishing the fact that slaves were people who had intrinsic value and worth and should not be claimed as property.  It was an appeal, not to the greater good, but to the Greatest Good--transcendent goodness.

We could probably spend more time arguing this point, but I will not belabor it any longer.  Ismael agreed with much of what I said in my sermon by his own admission in regards to transcendence and ethics.  Therefore, I will move on to the next issue--the issue of motivation.

Why does one engage in doing good and limiting the amount of harm caused?  If one is not engaged in doing good because something is inherently good (there is no transcendence), then essentially there are two motivations for doing good: 1) I like doing good and feel like what I am doing is good.  2) The other person needs me to do something for them, and I do it for their sake.

#1, I think we can agree is selfish motivation.  If I am pursuing good because of how it makes me feel, then I am engaging in it because I get a certain benefit from it.  I feel better about myself.  I feel good about what I have done and accomplished.

One may ask: what is wrong with this?

Nothing, to begin with.  The problem comes when others do not share your vision of what is good.  If I am a tolerant person who believes in allowing folks freedom to do things, then (by definition) I must also be tolerant of those who are intolerant.  Rarely does anyone do this.  In fact, those who preach tolerance are oftentimes vehemently opposed to those they deem intolerant.  They become just as self-righteous as those whom they deem intolerant!  Examples abound of this throughout the blogosphere.  One will suffice.

Before the ELCA website Living Lutheran changed its format and did away with comments, a very interesting exchange took place in a discussion over the ELCA's change to allow practicing homosexual clergy.  "Michael", a proponent of the change, adamantly defended the church's new position by saying, "If there are those in the church who don't like the decision, then they can just find another church."  Do you see the hypocrisy in the statement?  For if "those in the church who do not like the decision" should just find another church, then why didn't "Michael" do so when the church held the opposite position previously?  Why did "Michael" and others who fought for change simply leave previously?  Answer: Self-righteousness.  It pervades our churches and our society.  Why?

This is the inevitable outcome of doing things for one's self.  It becomes all about me, and I become self-righteous, narcissistic, and I even use others to accomplish what I want, convinced I am doing good.  (I do not say such things as someone who is immune from this.  I have been there, done that in a real way and am in a constant battle with my self-righteous, self-centered self.)

#2, might not seem to be such a bad thing.  I mean, we should do good to others for their sake and not our own.  We should be sensitive to their needs and concerns and do our best to ease their suffering.  There doesn't seem to be a downside to this one.

On the surface.

But as one who has experienced such things; as one who works in a helping profession, I can say quite honestly, if you live for others and try to satisfy their needs and ease their sufferings, you will burn out.  There is not enough of you to go around.  Plus, you will run into someone who does not have any boundaries who will literally suck you dry and take every ounce of energy you have.

You will strive to live up to their expectations and their needs, and you will eventually fall.  Evidence abounds for this among care-givers.  Not only will you burn out, but you will spend your entire life seeking your value and worth from others.  You will desperately want to hear their affirmation.  You will desperately want to receive their pats on the back.  And when such things are not forthcoming, you will fall deeply into despair.  It is not a pleasant place to be. 

Now, here is where things get interesting because one could argue for a third option.  One could "change one's mind" --remember, we are not talking about changing one's actions because I think we can agree that the actions of doing good and helping others are laudable--and say, "I neither act for myself nor act for others.  I seek to do good because there is an ultimate Good."

For the sake of this blog post, I will call that ultimate Good, God.  Why?  Well, if there is an ultimate Good--an ultimate sense of what is right and what is wrong--then that had to come from somewhere.  We didn't make it up.  If we did, we are right back to perspectivism and Nietzsche.   If there is a natural law of what is right and wrong, then it is logical to assume a Law Giver--an ultimate Good. (C.S. Lewis develops this argument much more fully in Mere Christianity.)

Now, I must ask myself whether or not I achieve that ultimate Good?  Do I accomplish the good I need?  Do I do a reasonable enough job of accomplishing enough good and easing the suffering of others?  Do I fulfill this sense of the natural law that I find inherent in nature?

I think, if we are honest with ourselves, we know that we do not.  We know that we do not ease the suffering of others as much as we could.  Most of the time, we give out of our abundance--where it doesn't affect our lifestyle or our ability to do the things that we want to do.  We give as long as we are comfortable.  We ease the sufferings of others as long as we don't feel put out by it.  We enjoy the fruits of others' labor even if that labor cost someone else dearly.  At the very least, we are contributors to the brokenness and injustice of this world.  We do not live up to that natural law.

One may choose to argue this point, so let me delve into it just a little further.  C.S. Lewis showed in his book The Abolition of Man, that nearly every culture and philosophy shared the common axiom "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  Nearly everyone I know believes this axiom should be followed.  Some folks do relatively well in sticking to it, but not fully.  How so?  Well, if I am going to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, then if I were poor and hungry, then I would want folks to help me out whenever I was in this state.  I would desire them to give me enough that I might be able to have the necessities of life.  Perhaps an individual would not be able to give me enough to sustain me, but through a collective effort, I would have enough.  This would mean, that if I had enough, I would give a little bit to every poor person I encounter.  I would willingly and graciously give to everyone who begged, even if it were a trifle amount.  The question is: do I do so?  Do I give even a little bit to everyone who begs from me--who believes him or her self poor and in need?  Regardless if I do not think they are in need, do I still give because the other believes he or she is in need?   Does anyone fulfill this to the extent of what is required?  Short answer: no.

So, where does that leave us in relationship to the Law Giver?  If we are not fulfilling the Law to the extent necessary, where does that leave us?  If we have no sense of shame or guilt, then it leaves us exactly nowhere.  I can simply go about my life thinking I am good enough even if I don't follow the universal axioms.  I can convince myself that I'm doing my part and should be satisfied with doing that part even if it isn't the fullest extent of what I can do.  If you find yourself in this category, then I simply make one observation: you cannot judge another person ever.  You cannot make any sort of moral judgement or statement about the beliefs and practices of another for you have no moral high ground to operate from.  You cannot tell anyone "you should do unto others" because you are not following the axiom yourself, and you must be content with what others choose to do and allow them to be just as satisfied with the job they believe they are doing as you are satisfied with yours.

But if I know that I do not follow the axiom to the extent it needs to be followed, and if I have a sense of shame and guilt about this, then I know I need to do something to rectify the situation.  I need to somehow make amends for not following through in doing what I know I am supposed to do.  I need to make things right within myself and with the Law Giver.  And how do I do that?

Every other religion and philosophy says, "Try harder."  "Do more."  "Overcome your selfish nature by your own strength."

The problem is, we cannot.  Why?  Well, first off, we are acting in our own self-interest when we do such things.  We are not acting in the interest of others or in the interest of the Greatest Good.  Our self is at the center, and we will head right down the path of self-righteousness.  Secondly, even when we try harder, we still will not accomplish the extent of following the axioms.  "Do unto others..."  If I followed this to the extent necessary, I would exhaust my resources and then be dependent upon others to give to me.  In a perfect world, that might work out, but we do not live in a perfect world...  History is replete with folks who say try harder, and time and again, it doesn't work out.

Only Christianity offers an alternative.  Only Christianity says, "You cannot make amends for your failure to follow the axioms of the Law Giver.  You cannot overcome your guilt and shame by trying harder.  You cannot walk a path that will not lead to self-righteousness or to self-destruction on your own.  You will either be dominated by self or be dominated by others.  Therefore, since you do not have the ability to change and overcome; since you cannot break out of this reality, the Law Giver will act to change the situation."

And the Word became flesh and lived among us...

God took on flesh and lived among us, not to take advantage of us (as in many of the Greek and Roman myths), but to die for us.

In no other religion or philosophy does God die on behalf of His creation.  Only Christianity.  (There is much, much more to it than this.  Books have been written explaining this further.  I am trying to condense it into a very small blog post, and I am just not doing it justice!!!)

And Christianity says, "To the extent you believe in what God has done for you, you will be able to overcome your selfish nature and accomplish following the great commands; not because you have to or because your self-worth or satisfaction or salvation depends upon it, but because you are thankful for what has been done on your behalf."

It is a radical departure from every other train of thought, and it is either crazy because it goes against the way the world works, or it is brilliant because its origins do not originate in the way the world actually works. 

And it is this last point which leads me to say this is why one should change.  For in Jesus we find a path that does not lead to self-righteousness (it can't because we have to acknowledge our inability to follow the universal axioms).  Neither does it lead to destruction of self through trying to please others (for we do not get our value and worth from pleasing others and doing all the right things).  It also answers how we are justified in not following the universal law or axioms (not by our own action but by the action of the Law Giver), and frees us from the guilt and shame of not fulfilling what we know we should do.  And last, it gives us the ability to point to what we ought to do because the Laws are still in effect--they are our guide in right and wrong, but we point to them in humility not in arrogance.

(If you would like to delve into this more, I highly recommend C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity and Timothy Keller's book The Reason for God.  I cannot even come close to doing justice to what these apologists have done in explaining the Christian faith.)

Why Worship...In Church?

For many years, I have struggled to answer this question.  In many ways, even some of the answers I have posted on this blog have left me unsatisfied.

I mean, I know what has been passed onto me:

• Worship is central to the life of a Christian.
• Worship is the place we encounter Jesus in the Word and Sacrament.
• Worship is where we meet fellow Christians who share our joys and sorrows.
• Worship is where heaven and earth intersect for precious moments helping us and equipping us to endure the grind of daily life.
• Worship is where we are instructed and equipped for living the Christian life.
• Worship is where we hear the Gospel.

All of these things (and a few more), I know deep within the depths of my being, but they are sorely inadequate in persuading people to attend worship on Sunday mornings.   Such points do not cut through the fortified walls people have erected in their lives--the walls of reasoning and thought excusing them from regular worship:

• I am spiritual, but not religious.  
• I can worship God anywhere.  I do not need to be in church to do so.
• I do not find anything compelling when I attend worship.
• This person hurt me, and I do not want to run into them at worship.
• I do not like the decision the church made, and I will not worship.
• I do not like the way the pastor preaches. 
• I do not like the music.
• I want more organ music.
• I want more contemporary music.
• I like being anonymous when I go to church and do not like small crowds.
• I like being welcomed and part of an intimate group and do not like large worship services.

And the list could go on.  Instead of picking at each of these points and arguing their merits or lack of merits, I would like to approach things from a little different manner.

First, a lengthy quote from Timothy Keller's book The Reason for God:

If you don't trust the Bible enough to let it challenge and correct your thinking, how could you ever have a personal relationship with God?  In any truly personal relationship, the other person has to be able to contradict you.  For example, if a wife is not allowed to contradict her husband, they won't have an intimate relationship.  Remember the (two!) movies The Stepford Wives?  The husbands of Stepford, Connecticut, decide to have their wives turned into robots who never cross the wills of their husbands.  A Stepford wife was wonderfully compliant and beautiful, but no one would describe such a marriage as intimate or personal.

Now, what happens if you eliminate anything from the Bible that offends your sensibility and crosses your will?  If you pick and choose what you want to believe and reject the rest, how will you ever have a God who can contradict you?  You won't!  You'll have a Stepford God!  A God, essentially, of your own making, and not a God with whom you can have a relationship and genuine interaction.  Only if your God can say things that outrage you and make you struggle (as in a real friendship or marriage!) will you know that you have gotten a hold of a real God and not a figment of your imagination.  (Kindle Location 1901-1907)

Can you connect the dots between worship and this quote?  I am sure many of you probably can, but if you are struggling, let me try and clarify.

At my congregation's last council meeting, one of the members brought up an interesting statistic: there are 8760 hours in a year.  If you worshiped every Sunday (at an average of one hour per worship service), you would only spend 52 of those hours in a place devoted to God--that's less than 1/2 of one percentage point of your time!!!

But let's also put a little more perspective on this.  During those other hours, everything else in the world is striving to garner your devotion.  Yes, I said that purposefully.  Everything else is trying to gain your worship and adoration--from your job to your family to your children to your leisure time  to television advertizements to your possessions to even your self!!  Each of these things is trying to draw your heart toward it, and they are obsessed with owning you and your time.  Don't believe me?  Try giving any one of them less attention than you do now.  See what happens.  Not only may you get a visceral reaction from one of these things, you will also feel torn, like you are letting it down.  You will feel guilty for not obeying one of your masters.  That may sound harsh, but it is assuredly true.  False gods do not let go of you easily--and it is not easy to give them up.  They have a special place in all of our hearts.

And there is no way to totally get rid of the heart's desire to worship.  There is no way to get rid of the heart's desire to grasp onto an object greater than itself.  Consider what atheist author David Foster Wallace said during a commencement address at  Kenyon College,

Everybody worships.  The only choice we get is what to worship, and the compelling reason to maybe choosing some sort of God or spiritual type thing to worship is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive.  If you choose to worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough.  Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure, and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age starts showing you will die a thousand million deaths before they finally grieve you.  Worship power and you will end up feeling weak and afraid and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect being seen as smart and you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud always on the verge of being found out.  But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is they are unconscious.  They are default settings.

Now, you may argue that there is nothing necessarily wrong with the "default settings" our hearts want to worship.  I mean, we do need money to survive in the world.  Taking care of our health and bodies are important.  Positive use of power makes a difference to people in the world--especially to those with no power.  Reading and studying to increase one's knowledge is generally a good thing.  I won't disagree with these statements, but that is not Foster's point.  Foster's point is that when these good things are turned into ultimate things, they will destroy you.  Each desire--while good in moderation--becomes destructive when it turns into an object of worship--a false god.  The reality is: there is no object of worship that does not lead to guilt, self-righteousness, pain, hunger, depression, anxiety, dissatisfaction, except God.  Unless Jesus is the heart's desire, one will remain unsatisfied and without peace.

Which leads right back to the worship of Jesus in church during the week.  Why?  Because we must answer the question: how do we put Jesus at the center of worship?  For a heart will not willingly give up its objects of worship.  It will simply turn from one to another.  Again, consider this quote
from Thomas Chalmers in his sermon "The Expulsive Powers of a New Affection":

It is seldom that any of our bad habits or flaws disappear by a mere process of natural extinction.  At least this is done very seldom through the instrumentality of reasoning or by the force of mental determination.  What cannot be destroyed; however, may be dispossessed.  One taste may be made to give way to another and to lose its power entirely as the reigning affection of the mind.  A youth may cease to idolize central pleasure but it's because the idol of wealth--the desire to make money--has got the ascendency; so he becomes disciplined.  But the love of money might actually cease to have mastery over his heart if it is drawn to ideology and politics.  Now he is lorded over by a love of power and of moral superiority instead of wealth.  But there is not one of these transformations in which the heart is left without an object.  The human heart's desire for one particular object is conquered, but it's desire to have some ultimate object of adoration is unconquerable.  The only way to dispossess the heart of an old affection is to replace it with the expulsive power of a new one.  Thus it is not enough to hold out to the world the mirror of its own imperfections; it is not enough to come forth with a demonstration of its evanessive character of their enjoyment; it's not enough to simply speak to the conscience--to speak of its follies; rather, you must seek as a preacher every legitimate method of finding access to the heart for the love of Him who is greater than the world. (As quoted by Timothy Keller here.)   

What Chalmer's argues is that our hearts move from object of worship to object of worship to object of worship, and this only happens when one object gets displaced by another.  We do not give those objects up freely or rationally.  Only when one object is substituted for another does our heart let go.  Tie that to what Foster said previous, and one must ask himself or herself: to what am I giving my worship, and is that worship leading me towards abundant life here and in the world to come?

If Foster is right, and I think he is, then the only worship which will lead to abundant life and not devour you is the worship of God--particularly the worship of Jesus Christ.  And, it is only at worship apart from the rest of the world and false gods, where the Gospel is proclaimed--the action God took to save you, redeem you, and give you value and worth.  It is only in worship where you hold the body and blood of Jesus and take them into yourself that He may transform you from within.  It is only in worship where you shut out all the other false gods which demand your time, effort and energy and turn your attention to the One True God.  It is only by hearing that you are broken yet forgiven by no action of your own that the false gods begin to lose their grip and be displaced by Jesus.

For He is the center of all Christian worship.  Not the music we play.  Not who may or may not be at church.  Not the size of the church.  Or whether or not I feel welcomed.  Or I find anything compelling (unless you are only receiving the Law and being told what to do over and over and over.  That is not hearing the Gospel, that is for certain.)

And you cannot hear the Gospel sitting by yourself in a deer stand, or on the beach, or while fishing.  You may see God's handiwork, but you do not meet Jesus--sorry, you just don't.  The Word takes root in proclamation not in doing.

I know this post makes a very big assumption--that people actually want to be transformed into something different.  It assumes people want to know peace and joy.  It assumes they want to have an abundant life--much more abundant than running around from activity to activity feeling tired and stressed and overworked and the like.  It assumes people are dissatisfied with the way things are playing out deep within themselves and they would like to find a place of peace.

If that fits you, I invite you to worship.  Regularly.  Not once a month.  Not twice a month.  As much as you can.  No excuses.  Come meet Jesus.  As your heart is moved toward Him, you will notice the difference.

Aw, Hell

I remember vividly sitting in my Introduction to Theology class at Texas Lutheran.  One of my classmates made a comment to the professor about the devil.

My professor replied, "I don't know what you are talking about."

The student said, "Satan.  The devil.  The guy talked about in the Bible."

The professor responded, "I don't believe in the devil, so I don't know what you are talking about."

A bit of hyperbole on my professor's part, but his point was made abundantly clear.  He didn't believe in the devil.  None of us in the class were willing to challenge him on this assertion.  It's little doubt why.  Our grades hung in the balance.

Yet, it was a bewildering thought to me how a professor of theology who was an ordained pastor and practicing Christian could blatantly admit no belief in the devil--especially in light of what Jesus revealed to us in Scripture.  Yet, as time progressed, and I learned more, I began to understand.

I also found out, my college professor was not alone.  More and more folks in the "progressive" strain of Christianity do not believe in the devil, Satan, or even hell.  And as I perused the Living Lutheran website the other day, I found one more--the head of an ELCA seminary.

Dr. David Lose published an article titled, "Do We Miss Hell?"


You can read the following in context, but I will delve into a few things in succession:

For the last few decades at least, you see, “hell” has stopped being a particularly lively or compelling topic in mainline preaching and conversation. Given it’s relatively scant place in Scripture, that may be a far more faithful treatment of the topic than many on the far right of the religious spectrum would guess. But while many of us have a harder and harder time imagining the God we know in Jesus consigning someone to a place of eternal torment and therefore applaud this development, I have wondered from time to time if we’ve figured out exactly what is a good substitute for hell.

There are a few assumptions here.  First off, the idea that a "scant" amount of discussion in scripture equals a sense of unimportance.  I mean, geez, the idea of hell was only conveyed by Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, God incarnate as He taught his followers and others.  Sure, it only seems to be relegated to the New Testament to the friggin' teachings of Jesus, but it's scant.  O.K.  Am I the only one who kind of sees this as a fishy assumption?  What else did Jesus say that we can simply ignore because it is "scant?"  Anyone?  Anyone?  Let's not play this little game here.  Jesus made reference to hell numerous times, and unless you want to say the NT writers were not credible--which there are more than a few who do--then you've got to deal with what Jesus said.  And if you decide to go down the road of simply dismissing such sayings as "Matthew's Jesus," then I am equally able to dismiss any other saying of Jesus in the same attributive fashion.

Second point--the God we know in Jesus doesn't consign someone to hell.  Dr. Lose should know better.  We consign ourselves to hell.  Read Dante's inferno.  Dr. Lose seems to be heavily influenced by the "far right of the religious spectrum" instead of the orthodox understanding of what hell really is--separation from God.  The fact of the matter is: God loves us enough to allow us to chase our deepest heart's desire for eternity; and if that desire is not God, then we will chase that other desire forever and never, ever be satisfied--hell. 

I must move on to more of Lose's article to continue the points:

What, that is, is the motivation for our gathering, our giving, our serving and volunteering? At least things were pretty clear when you had heaven as the carrot and hellfire as the stick. But what now? Even heaven seems increasingly difficult to talk about, as we perhaps too narrowly defined it as, well, the opposite of hell. So if we don’t have the mother-of-all reward-and-punishment schemes to fall back on, have we figured out exactly what we’re offering people. Community? Perhaps, though a little vague. Justice, certainly, though harder to attain (especially, some might argue, absent the threat of hell). Abundant life? This one appeals greatly to me but has been at times co-opted by the prosperity-gospel folks on the one side and Madison Avenue on the other.

*Sigh.*  The mother of all reward and punishment schemes.  Really?  I am starting to hope this article is tongue and cheek.  I really am hoping so.  With Luther's explanation to the eighth commandment ringing in my ears, I am desperately hoping Dr. Lose is being blatantly humorous here.   What is the motivation for our gathering, our grieving, our serving, and our volunteering?

Nothing less than what God has done for us.  But before I get to that, one more paragraph:

I think if the mainline traditions are going to have a future, we need to be far clearer about why we gather and what we imagine participation in our communities yields. I’m not advocating for a return to hell, mind you, just recognizing that we need to recognize that in a world of many faiths, many narratives, and many, many ways to make sense of our lives, we need to get straight what we think is the heart of the Christian faith and offer that in as winsome and compelling a way as possible. I don’t miss hell, but I’m not sure we’ve quite figured out what to do without. And that needs to change.

Yes, we live in a world of many faiths, many narratives, and many, many ways to make sense of our lives; however not all of these faiths, narratives, and ways are equal or truthful.  There is such a thing as objective Truth--even if we cannot know it objectively.  And Christianity stakes its claim on the God who became flesh and lived among us--the God who knew we were making a mess out of our relationships and our world--the God who loved us so much, He could not stand to see our destructive behavior toward Him and toward one another and after numerous times of trying to get us to change our ways through punishment and obedience to the Law, sent His Son to perfectly fulfill the Law, to pay for our sin, and to clothe us with His righteousness.  And on the third day to rise again to point us toward the hope to which we are guaranteed--a new heaven and a new earth with no separation from God.

Oh, I know.  I know.  The most difficult thing for most folks outside the Christian narrative to accept is their sinfulness or how that sinfulness has separated them from God.  I know the idea of original sin is passe in some circles.  I know many folks in the mainline and emergent church tend to talk about sin in terms of corporate structures.  I get that.  But the Gospel is meant for individuals to begin with.  "Truly I tell you, no one can see the Kingdom of God without being born from above."  (John 3:3).  And if one is truly honest with one's self, one knows one is sinful.  Evidence abounds for this.  The desire to be our own god and rule our own little worlds reigns supreme in damn near everyone.  ("If everyone would just do what I say, then everything would work out fine," said everyone at some particular point and time in their lives.)

And yet, when the Gospel takes hold, a corporate structure begins to take shape:

Worship becomes the place where we gather in thanksgiving for what God has done through Jesus--to place Jesus at the center of our hearts and lives as we strive to combat all the other false gods which diligently sink their claws into us to pull us away from the One, True God.  Worship becomes the place where the Good News--the Gospel--is announced over and over and over again:  God, through Jesus has accomplished salvation for you!  Live into that freedom!  This Gospel cannot be lived out.  You cannot accomplish what Jesus accomplished.  It is already done.  Period.  It is no "mother of all reward and punishment schemes."  Every other world religion and philosophy operates in that fashion.  Those are all the ones which say "do this, and you will be rewarded."  Christianity says, "You are rewarded (accepted), now do this."  It stands alone in that category and is blatantly contrary to the way the world operates.

And when you know you are accepted...
When you know you are justified...
When you know that even in the midst of your failure, you are loved...
When you know the cost God paid to claim you...

You can't help but want to worship Him and lift your voice.  For in Him is life--abundant life right here and now.  A life, not full of wealth and riches (although some are lucky to acquire them), but a life full of peace and joy knowing one does not have to work to justify one's self.  One can freely engage in love without fear and anger. 

And if fear and anger take root in you...
If you feel like you constantly have to justify yourself...
If you think wealth, or health, or sex, or property, or what have you will satisfy...

You already have hell grasping at you.

But, aw, hell, what do I know?

For the last few decades at least, you see, “hell” has stopped being a particularly lively or compelling topic in mainline preaching and conversation. Given its relatively scant place in Scripture, that may be a far more faithful treatment of the topic than many on the far right of the religious spectrum would guess. But while many of us have a harder and harder time imagining the God we know in Jesus consigning someone to a place of eternal torment and therefore applaud this development, I have wondered from time to time if we’ve figured out exactly what is a good substitute for hell. - See more at: http://www.elca.org/Living-Lutheran/Blogs/2014/09/140911-Do-we-miss-hell#sthash.eO9H4oBt.dpuf

For the last few decades at least, you see, “hell” has stopped being a particularly lively or compelling topic in mainline preaching and conversation. Given its relatively scant place in Scripture, that may be a far more faithful treatment of the topic than many on the far right of the religious spectrum would guess. But while many of us have a harder and harder time imagining the God we know in Jesus consigning someone to a place of eternal torment and therefore applaud this development, I have wondered from time to time if we’ve figured out exactly what is a good substitute for hell. - See more at: http://www.elca.org/Living-Lutheran/Blogs/2014/09/140911-Do-we-miss-hell#sthash.eO9H4oBt.dpuf

Religion Versus Relationship

I haven't gone on the warpath here lately, and perhaps it is time; after all, we Lutherans ascribe to both Law and Gospel.

Let me also preface this with a little anecdote.  For many years, I had no response to folks who said that they worshiped God in nature.  I personally agreed with the assessment for in spending time in God's creation, I found myself in awe of the Creator.  But, there was always a nagging voice within me--a nagging voice that felt the idea of "worship" in such a fashion was lacking.  I was never quite able to give voice to it. 

Of course, there were others who gave voice to it.  I vividly remember folks who would say, "I am sure you can find God in nature, but when's the last time a tree offered you forgiveness?"

Such a saying is all well and good for someone who believes in Jesus Christ and is convicted by the Gospel.  It's not so good when dealing with someone who does not have a deep seeded faith.  How does one convince another that worshiping in nature and worshiping in a congregation are vastly different things?

Then, there is the whole religion versus relationship thing.  "I'm spiritual but not religious."  Yeah, I've heard that one a time or two as well.  Yet, many of the arguments addressing this particular pithy saying are based in a faith which is well grounded.  How do you address someone who is convinced their own faith is well grounded and that they are just as right as you might think you are?

Perhaps I wouldn't even be writing this blog post, but the above picture was actually posted by a fellow clergy.  Of all things, I never thought a fellow clergy would post such an picture with such an asinine message.  I mean, this is what passes for apologetics these days?

Why am I so upset?

Perhaps I shouldn't be.  And, please don't get me wrong.  I am not upset at people who do such a thing.  I'm no better than others who choose to go hunting or fishing on a Sunday morning.  My feet are as full of clay as theirs.  But I have been convinced by Timothy Keller and others who say that unless we confront our false gods and deal with them, we will continue to see the decline of Christianity in our society.

Consider me confronting a particular false god in this post--the false gods of nature worship and self-spirituality.

Let's take the above saying and tweak it just a little bit--changing the characters and the setting.  By doing so, I think you will get my point:

Infidelity is a man sitting at a restaurant with his girlfriend and thinking about fishing.  
A man sitting on a boat fishing and thinking about his girlfriend is relationship.

Is my point made?

Both of these particular instances are problematic.  Both show a complete disregard for true relationship.  Both show self-centered behavior on the part of the man.

Yet, we say that one of these is acceptable behavior toward God?

Face it, the reason most folks say they encounter God in nature is to absolve themselves of the responsibility of worship.   "I can worship God in nature," is simply code for saying, "I'd rather not go to church."

If that is your choice, fine.  Admit it, but don't sugar coat it. 

And, if indeed you are spiritually awakened in nature...
If indeed you have truly found a lasting peace, joy and fulfillment...
If you have found a sense of wholeness...

Don't you then think you have the responsibility of teaching others how to find that peace, fulfillment, and joy?  Don't you think you have the responsibility of sharing what you have discovered?  Do you think such a lasting thing should be kept to one's self?

As an old Hindu proverb says, "It takes both individual bees and the hive to produce honey."

Worship is an intensely relational phenomena--nurturing one's relationship with God and with fellow believers.  It is not practiced individually.  It is practiced corporately.  It is focused not on self, but on the other. 

When Jesus is the object of worship, as within the Christian faith, we gather to hear Him speak to us--through the written Word of Scripture, through the proclaimed Word of sermons, through the sung Word of hymns, through the proclaimed Word of forgiveness--and we gather to touch and hold Him in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.  These are not things you find in nature.  Period. 

And while we are turning our attention to Christ during this time, He is also turning His attention toward us--strengthening our faith, renewing our hope, and filling us with peace.  This peace and hope pales in comparison to the peace and hope we find in nature, for that peace fades the more we are removed from it.  That sense of well being diminishes when we get back to the "real world."  The peace Jesus offers doesn't fade.  It is a spring of living water.

Why doesn't Jesus' peace diminish when the other does? 

Because it's a part of a real relationship--religion and all.

How Do You Know Christianity is True?

    A brilliant magician was performing on an ocean liner. But every time he did a trick, the Captain's parrot would yell, "It's a trick. He's a phony. That's not magic." Then one evening during a storm, the ship sank while the magician was performing. The parrot and the magician ended up in the same lifeboat. For several days they just glared at each other, neither saying a word to the other. Finally the parrot said, "OK, I give up. What did you do with the ship?"

    Funny enough, the parrot had a problem.  The parrot couldn’t distinguish between what was real and what was fantasy.  The parrot couldn’t distinguish between what was truly an act and the tragedy that had befallen the ship.  Sometimes, I wonder if we don’t have the same problem.  Why do I say that?

    How do you know Christianity is true?

    Perhaps you have never thought about that question.  Perhaps you have simply assumed its truth as something taught to you by your parents, Sunday School teachers, pastors, or other such authority figures.  Perhaps you have simply been raised as a Christian and so the question has never bothered you.  Perhaps you simply haven’t taken or haven’t had the time to deeply reflect upon this faith you have come to participate in this morning.  Perhaps you are one of those sitting out there who has had such doubts as you have run into more and more people who have become a part of the fastest growing religious group in our nation: the nones–but you have been afraid to voice your doubts for fear that someone will be disappointed in you or that someone will automatically condemn you to hell.  The reasons may be many and varied, but this morning I want to put it front and center in our conversation. 

    How do you know Christianity is true?

    On the one hand, you may simply answer: I know it is true because I have felt a deep, personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  I know it’s true because it helps me order my life; it makes everything fit; or as C.S. Lewis once said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”  For some of us, the answer is as plain as this.  Yet, in our world today, this point of view is often rebutted by someone saying, “Well, that’s fine for you.  What is truth for you isn’t necessarily truth for me.  What works for you doesn’t necessarily work for me.  Truth is relative.”

    And their rebuttal works...IF, if mind you, truth is simply something that works.  If truth is simply a way of making sense of the world, then there are myriads of ways of making sense out of life.  Who is to say which one is right and which one is wrong?  But what if truth isn’t simply something that works?  What if truth isn’t just something that gives a person a frame of reference?  I mean, we do know that certain frames of reference are better than others, do we not?  We know that Mother Teresa’s way of looking at the world is better than those who flew their planes into the world trade centers, do we not?   We know the liberties we experience in this nation are better than the brutality experienced by people in dictatorships, do we not?  If we begin making such claims, then we are appealing to a higher truth. 

    And how do we come to know that higher truth?  How do we know we simply haven’t created it on our own?  Let’s try to work our way through this just a little bit this morning.  Mind you, I don’t quite to pin everything down in 15 minutes or so, but I want to begin making a case for the truth of Christianity–a truth you can understand and begin to share with those who offer their doubts.

    We will begin with the opening statement of our second lesson this morning from 2 Peter chapter 1 verse 16, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.”

    Stop right here a moment and process this statement.  The author of this book, who Christian tradition attributes to St. Peter is blunt.  “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  Apparently, there were those who were spreading this thought regarding Christianity.  There were those who believed that the whole shebang was completely and totally made up.  There are those who adamantly say this about Christianity today, so really, as the Church, we are not facing anything we haven’t faced before.  Peter doesn’t mince words, he draws a line in the sand and says, “Nope.  This isn’t some kind of cleverly devised myth.”  What does he appeal to next?

    Again, listen to this carefully, “we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ 18We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.  19 So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.”

    We were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ majesty.  We heard the voice on the mountaintop.  We were there watching this all transpire. 

    Now, we need to deviate for just a moment.  Some scholars have often said that the way the Bible developed is that over a span of decades, people started telling stories.  Those stories became embellished as folks told of Jesus’ words and deeds.  As time passed, it was thought it would be a good idea to write the stories down and what got written down was the embellished tales and not any sort of historical truth.  The myth was written; the truth was lost.  This train of thought assumes a couple of things: it assumes that the stories about Jesus were written long after his original followers had died off, and it assumes there were no checks and balances going on in the early Christian movement.  It assumes that the eyewitness testimony of the disciples was less important than the embellishment.  I think their assumptions are wrong.  I’m not the only one.  Why is this important?

    As people we are geared to accept and trust the eyewitness accounts of people–unless we have a good reason to distrust those accounts.  What do I mean by that?  Well, let’s say you are having dinner one evening with your significant other.  You arrive at a restaurant and are making pleasant conversation.  Your significant other begins telling you about her day.  She says, “I had a very productive day.  I went to work and managed to handle several important cases in a matter of hours.  I counseled a couple of junior employees and they are better equipped to handle their jobs.  After work, I enjoyed a brisk work out at the gym and am feeling fantastic.”

    Would you then look at your significant other and say, “Sounds interesting, but do you have any evidence to back your assertions up?”

    How do you think the rest of your evening is going to go? 

    We are programmed to accept eyewitness testimony unless we have a good reason to distrust it–the person who tells us is found to be a liar; we discover evidence to the contrary; we find others who testify a different set of events. 

    2 Peter 1:16 is an intriguing piece of scripture as it claims to be eyewitness testimony to the transfiguration.  Peter claims to have been there, seen that, and now we have to decide whether or not to trust the account.  “We did not follow any cleverly devised myths.”

    Let me take just a moment to say a word about this before trying to bring everything together.  We know how many world religions got their start.  We know what most of them teach.  Islam started when the Muhammed wrote down the Koran.  Buddhism started when Siddartha Guatama wrote down the eight fold path.  Mormonism started with Joseph Smith wrote down some intranslatable tablets.  In every one of these religions, the founders wrote down what it means to get into God’s good graces.  In every one of these religions, it’s about what I have to do to attain salvation.  In every one of the world’s major religions, it is up to us as humans to appease God by our actions and our beliefs.  In every one of the world’s other major religions, God asks for obedience before showing mercy.  Each of the religions is cleverly devised to show this axiom.  Only Christianity is different.  Only Christianity begins with God coming down and bestowing grace and then asking us for obedience.  Only Christianity has God dying for the sake of humanity, offering us His love, and then asking for obedience.  One could call this clever, but one could also say this represents a radical departure from human understanding.  One could say this represents a tectonic shift in an understanding about God and God’s love.  And it all centers around Jesus.

    For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world but so that the world may be saved through Him.

    How do we know this to be true?  First off, it’s based on eyewitness testimony, and I do not think we have had anything which has shown this testimony to be absolutely untrustworthy.  Second, Christianity presents such a radical departure from the norm, that it could not have been devised by human thought, but it had to come from outside of ourselves.  It is the only faith that does not have humankind work its way to God, but has God work His way to humankind.  “We do not follow cleverly devised myths.”  We follow Christ, and we seek to Live His Word Daily.  Amen.

Why Deal with the "Big" Questions?

In the video I posted a link to yesterday, I was intrigued by one of the questions asked by a student during the Q&A time following the professors' presentations. 

Paraphrased, the question basically boiled down to: why should we as students deal with these big questions now?   Can't we just wait until we are settled down, working, married, raising children, etc.?

I actually was a bit disturbed by the profs' answer which basically boiled down to: you don't know when you are going to die.  Better get this stuff handled now.

While essentially their statement is true--we do not know how much time we indeed have on this earth, I personally would handle the question in a much different manner.  For the driving motive to then think on such matters revolves around fear.  Get this thinking done, or you might be gone tomorrow!  I'm not one who likes to use fear as the proper motivation.

To begin with, I would have gone after a major assumption made by the young woman--that she would eventually get "settled" into a job and family and suddenly find time to think about such matters.  This is a major, major assumption--one that I believe is a fallacy.  I do not know too many people who find much time once they begin careers and have children. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case.  Once a person graduates from college and begins working and then starts a family, time shrinks.  Work demands anywhere from 40-70 hours from a person per week.  Children suck down much of the rest of that time.  The desire to get away for any sort of down time means traveling on weekend getaways.  Of course, as children grow, then comes school, homework, extra-curricular activities, weekend sports, etc.  And after the kids move out, then comes time to volunteer at the things one is passionate about.  Then comes retirement, and if the indications I get from most retired folks, they are actually more busy after they retire than when they were working!  Time has a way of slipping away from us.

So, given that you may never find yourself "settled down", when is it time to think about the deep questions of life: why am I here?   What is my purpose?  Why do good?  What do I do when I cannot find answers?  What is the meaning of all of this?  What am I willing to give up to be successful?

Is being busy just a way of avoiding such questions?

I have heard at least one person say they had no desire to examine these questions.  This person was quite content to live an unexamined life.  But I don't sense this to be the case for many others.  There seems to be a general hunger for purpose, meaning, and authenticity at least in the U.S.  And from what I have read and seen, people are having a horrid time discovering such things.

And I wonder if it's because they are too busy?  I wonder if it's because there is tremendous pressure put on us to be moving, working, playing, shopping, engaged, connected, online, social networking, and what have you?  I wonder if we have lost our ability to contemplate and think, lured by a false sense of identity found through cyberspace and technology?

I do not believe one finds meaning, purpose, and authenticity in the cyber-world.  Nor do I believe it is found in staying busy.  Or work.  Or flying around from activity to activity.  Or in having fun and partying.  I believe it is found in allowing life's big questions to drive one to the ultimate source of reality--and I believe that ultimate source is the creator God revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps one reason people fear those big questions is that eventually they are forced to deal with Jesus, and He's unsettling.  He makes you confront your shortcomings, but He also gives you strength, purpose, meaning, and authenticity.  If you want to wait until you have time to finally discover such things, then be my guest; however, if you want those things now and the fulfillment they bring now, don't wait.  Take time to deal with the big questions.