Arnold Schwarzenegger, Heaven, and the Reality of What He Said

 I saw the clickbait headlines, and I clicked.  

That's what they are there for, right? 

And when a famous movie star says that heaven is a fantasy and that those who say we won't get to be reunited with those who have died are effing liars...well, that makes news.

And, boy, was I formulating a response.  Was I ready to jump into the fray and hammer what was reportedly said.  I had it all laid out and ready to go.

But, the thing about clickbait headlines and the articles that follow is: they often are misleading.  They pull quotations out of their context and create a narrative that may or may not be true to the initial setting.

So, before I decided to open up with both barrels, I decided to search for the original commentary in Interview Magazine.  Please read it if you have not.  It is worthwhile if you are interested in this story as I am--particularly as a pastor, theologian, and someone who preaches the reality of heaven.

As I read through the interview, I see a man whose life experiences have led him to a place where it is natural to question the existence of heaven.  Just read about what Schwarzenegger's life was like in Austria.  The guy knows poverty.  He knows what it means to struggle.  He had to use an outhouse and dream of having music in his home.  (These are things that many of us in the U.S. have no clue--no friggin' clue--about.  

Schwarzenegger found a pathway out of that poverty through weight training, joining the military, obtaining his passport, and coming to the U.S.  He was given opportunity through the generosity and care of famous gym owners.  

Schwarzenegger recognizes that he is no self-made man.  He knows there were people who gave him breaks.  He knows there are people who helped him along the way.  The tribute he gives to these people is packed with emotion.

And he is grateful.  Extremely grateful for everything that he has.  From extreme poverty to absolute wealth, the contrast he has experienced in his life is amazing.  And here is the thing: if you take into account where he started to where he is now, he has passed from hell into heaven.  From a house with no electricity and no running water to sitting down with famous people, smoking Cuban cigars, able to buy whatever he wants.  How could it get any better for him?  I mean, really, how could it get any better?

He went from the lowest of low to achieving the highest possible position of power that he could achieve in the U.S.--as the governor of California; the highest possible position of fame--a Hollywood movie star who has been in multiple blockbuster movies; to one of the wealthiest people in the world.  What more is there to look forward to?  How could heaven possibly be better?

And that's likely why death scares him, in my opinion.

Arnold claims to be no spiritual expert, and that comes through in his conversation in the interview.  As I read it, he is wrestling back and forth with the concepts of nihilism, hope, spirituality, body, soul, and how it all might work out.  It's much more nuanced than many of the headlines and articles report.

And I am thankful for his wrestling.  I wish the news articles would have highlighted that more, and I'd love to have a conversation with Arnold regarding these matters.  It might be difficult to persuade him, but on the other hand, it might not be.

Because I would like to ask him what his perspective might be if he had never gotten out of Austria; if he had never become Mr. Universe and a movie star; if he had never achieved the status that he had achieved.  Would he be as enamored with this life now?  Would he think that there could be nothing better than this life?  How does he grapple with the billions of humans who never come close to experiencing the life he has?  How does he deal with the fact that millions upon millions of people never experience justice, satisfaction, fulfillment, and the like?  

Would he look at a mother and father who are burying their still born child and say that the person who tells them they will see their child again in heaven are liars? Would he tell them that the child is simply going to disintegrate, to get over it?  Would he say the same to a mother and father staring down into the casket looking at their daughter's body for what seems like an eternity, not wanting to close that casket because when they do, it rams home the reality that they will never see her dance, sing, or laugh again?  Would he look into the eyes of a widow or widower who has just lost their spouse of 50+ years and now has to think of what life will be like without that person; who wonders how they will move on and deny the existence of heaven?  Will he look down on a person suffering from cancer whose every breath is painful; who is wondering why this disease has come upon her and wondering if this is all that life has to offer; and say that someone telling them about heaven is an effing liar?

I don't think so.  I don't think he would at all.  He's mad that we die. That comes across plain and clear in his interview.  He doesn't want it to be that way.  He wants someone or something to blame.  But he also has no clear way to resolve these thoughts.  Intellectually, he is in a rough space.

He is not alone.  He's not the only person who wrestles with such things. Lots of people do.

Those of us who are Christians have a resolution to these problems: answers that have been passed down for over 2000 years.  They are still very good answers, but they are also best shared in person; face to face; over coffee, beer, lunch, dinner, and the like.  Not likely that any such meeting would ever take place between me and Arnold, but I have had those conversations numerous times.  Some of them took place with the examples I shared earlier--those weren't made up.  They were situations I found myself in as a pastor, and I cannot express how the Christian view empowered each and every one of them to face the days ahead with a sure and certain hope.  I hope Arnold has someone who can sit down with him and help him see it too.

Problem with the Truth

 Why is it that we have such a problem with the truth?

 You may scratch your head at that statement, but hear me out.  I believe that we as humans have a love-hate relationship with the truth.  We love to think that we are diligently seeking it out or that we have found it, but, in reality, we don’t actually want to find it.  We’d rather think that truth does not exist or is so completely subjective and relative that it doesn’t apply to us.  Why would I say such a thing?

 Well, I want us to think about it for a minute as we apply the truth to some very real world situations.  Let’s take the issue of hunger in the world.  We all know there are people in this world who face hunger every day.  We also know that people die from hunger every day.  And we also know that we produce enough food in the world to feed everyone with no problem.  No one should go hungry, so why do they?  I have said before that the truth of the matter is: we don’t have a hunger problem; we have a distribution problem.  Food is not distributed to those who are in need.  That’s the truth.  We may all nod in agreement this morning with that statement, but here is where the truth hurts.  If you are like me, you have a pantry full of food.  You have a refrigerator full of food, and you have a freezer with plenty of food in it.  Most of us have enough food stored up in our house to last for months.  We have much more than we need, so we are actually part of the problem.  When the truth confronts us, we don’t like it. 

 Or, let’s turn our attention to politics for a little bit.  I know we have both Republicans and Democrats sitting here this morning. Some of you are passionate about supporting your political party, and I understand that.  Some of you are more quiet than others given that this area leans very strong Republican.  We are in the midst of a presidential election year, and the newspapers, radio waves, and internet feeds are going nuts talking about how the end of the world–or at least the end of the U.S. will be at hand if either Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders is elected.  So, what is the truth of the matter.  Well, if history is any judge, it’s not going to matter who is going to get elected.  Really.  Think about it.  Has the election of anyone really made a difference for any one of you here today?  Has your life improved substantially by the election of any particular person to office?  The reality is that elections are more about which corporate entities get richer.  You and I almost never benefit, and yet we fight amongst each other as if these elections were life and death.  And the truth hurts because we become so emotionally involved in these things.  When the truth confronts us, we don’t like it.

 And God forbid that anyone asks us what we really believe is the truth about a particular issue.  I’ve stepped in it a bit with my first two illustrations.  Perhaps I’ve gotten myself into a little bit of hot water, but that’s going to be nothing compared to this next topic.  I’m going to talk about altar flowers.  Some of you may laugh at this.  Others are already gearing up for a battle.  If you are not a Christian or are new to the Christian church, you may not realize that there are actually conflicts in churches about whether or not you can use artificial flowers on the altar.  And we pastors are oftentimes thrust right into the midst of the battle.  “Pastor, can we use artificial flowers on the altar?”  “Pastor, tell them that only live flowers are allowed on the altar.”  Believe me, you don’t want to be caught here.  It’s not pleasant.

 What is the truth of the matter here?  My honest answer to folks on this one is: God doesn’t care what kind of flowers you put up there, but people do.  Before anyone throws anything, hear me out.  Do you really think God in heaven looks at a congregation and says, “Whoa there!  They put artificial flowers on the altar down there.  That’s a huge no, no.  Gonna have to move them to the going to hell list until they repent and use real flowers.”  I mean, it’s just as plausible as God looking down from heaven and saying, “Wait a minute!  I gave these people the ability to produce very realistic flowers so they wouldn’t have to destroy the beauty of my creation just to add color to their worship services.  Why do they persist in taking the wondrous beauty I produce outside and move it inside when they don’t have to anymore?  I’m going to put them on the going to hell list until they repent and change their ways.”  Do either of these things make any sense what-so-ever?  But, this truth confronts us in our own traditions–traditions that are very important to some of us.  And if our traditions are shown to be not as important as we once thought, we are not happy about it.  The truth hurts.

 In each of the examples above, when truth is brought to the matter, we don’t like it.  It makes us dig deep down within ourselves to confront our biases and our behaviors.  The truth reveals that we are not as holy, as good, or as worthy as we think that we are; so even though we like to think that we strive for the truth (because that makes us look good), when confronted with the truth, we generally shy away from it or refuse to admit it.  It is too painful.

 I believe this is why the Jewish authorities were trying so hard to get rid of Jesus.  This is why they paid Judas to betray Him.  This is why they put Him on trial.  They could not stand that He, as the way, the Truth, and the life, revealed their shortcomings and showed how they had corrupted the Jewish faith.  Unable to handle the Truth, they chose to get rid of it.

 After Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gesthemane, they brought Him to the high priest.  This move was highly unusual.  The Jews had developed a system of jurisprudence that followed the Torah.  They prided themselves on being a just people, but all of that was thrown to the wind because of their hatred of Jesus.  Ordinarily, they would meet in the daytime so that all proceedings could be public.  Not so now.  Ordinarily, they met “in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, north of the temple sanctuary, adjacent to the Court of Israel.”  (Edwards) Not so now.  They met in the high priest’s house to expedite the process and keep out public influence.  Ordinarily, they gave the accused time to prepare a defense.  Not so now.  All of their jurisprudence, they threw out the window because of their hatred of Jesus.

 And they certainly didn’t have any ideas of innocent until proven guilty.  Mark says they were seeking evidence so that they could put Jesus to death.  They didn’t have any evidence!!  But they desperately wanted some, so they tried their hardest to produce such evidence.  They failed repeatedly.  You see, according to Jewish law at the time, two witnesses were necessary to provide evidence for a death penalty, and those two witnesses had to agree on every detail–every single detail.  The Jews knew how unreliable eye-witness testimony could be.  They knew that oftentimes people saw what they wanted to see and heard what they wanted to hear.  They wanted to insure this did not happen to an accused person.  They wanted to make sure people weren’t lying just to get rid of someone.  They questioned witnesses individually to safeguard fraud.  And their own system was failing them.  The false witnesses who came to testify against Jesus could not agree on details.  Not surprising since they were making stuff up as they went.

 Mark records then, a very interesting note.  Witnesses came forth to say that Jesus had said, “I will tear down this temple made with hands and build one not made with hands.”  Nowhere in Mark did Jesus say this.  There is a reference to this in the book of John.  It’s an interesting accusation because of what it connotes.  According to Craig Evans, “Referring to the temple as... “made with hands” in itself would have been offensive to the ruling priests, for in addition to denying the divine status of the temple such a statement would even hint at its idolatrous status.  In the LXX, ...“made with hands” appears several times in reference to idols.  Such a connotation would only intensify the prophetic indictment of Jesus’ saying” The temple establishment is likened to something human, perhaps even idolatrous, that will be destroyed when the “son of man” comes and a temple...”not made with hands” is erected.”  The accusation here against Jesus is that He is claiming that the temple is an idol.  That would have infuriated the Sanhedrin, and could have carried a death sentence.  However, we know from the book of John that Jesus was not referring to the temple proper but His body.  This is most probably why, “on even this point they could not agree.”

 The trial at this point is not going well for the Sanhedrin.  The false witnesses cannot come up with a proper accusation.  Jesus is not cooperating with His silence. Ordinarily, an accused person would speak up and defend himself, but Jesus does not.  If He opens His mouth, it is very likely, the Sanhedrin will find something to accuse Him of, so Jesus lets things play out.  He will not answer falsehood.  There is no need.  It will always undermine itself.  Therefore, since the witnesses cannot agree, and Jesus remains silent, Caiaphas, the high priest takes matters into his own hands.  With the thought of this trial slipping away and the distasteful prospect of having to release Jesus, Caiaphas speaks, “ 60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, ‘Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?’ 61But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

 Let me read to you Walter Liefield’s comment here, “The silence of Jesus to the first questions prompted the high priest to ask him another.  The question “Are you the Christ the son of the Blessed One?” indicates that by this time the religious authorities either knew or suspected that Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah.  “The Blessed” is a reverential circumlocution to avoid the pronunciation of the name of God and stands in apposition to the title “Christ” or “messiah.”  “Son of God” was understood by the Jews of Jesus time solely in a messianic sense; and since the Messiah in Jewish expectations was to be a man, the question of the high priest was about Jesus’ claim to messiahship and had nothing to do with deity.  The question proved to be a stroke of genius.  Blasphemy was a capital crime.  If the religious authorities could not effect an accusation by the testimony of others, Jesus’ own testimony about himself would do.  Had Jesus refused to answer this question, the Sanhedrin would have had to devise some other plan.”

 If Jesus would have remained silent, some other plan would have needed to been devised.  If Jesus would just have remained silent.  But He did not.  At this crucial junction, Jesus spoke.  And He didn’t pull any punches.  “I am; and “you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power”, and “coming with the clouds of heaven.”  Now, if Jesus would have simply admitted that He claimed to be the Messiah, there would not have been much of an uproar.  There were people who claimed to be the Messiah all the time, and the Sanhedrin didn’t accuse them of blasphemy.  There is something more to Jesus’ statement here.  There something that truly sets Him apart form these other wanna be Messsiahs.  Let’s start with the first two words of Jesus’ answer. “I AM.”  Some scholars debate this particular response as to whether Jesus is simply self identifying or if there is more going on because the Greek words here: ego eime are the exact words used for God’s name in the Greek translation of the Jewish Bible.  If Jesus is using the name of God right here, it is no wonder He is accused of blasphemy!  He is telling the Sanhedrin He is God!!!

 And Jesus does not quit there, He continues by quoting Psalm 110 and Daniel 13.  N.T. Wright says this, “...these two biblical texts, taken together, answer all the questions simultaneously, and add to them the assertion that Jesus will be vindicated, exalted to a place at God’s right hand.  The answer says, in a tight-packed phrase: yes, I am a true prophet; yes, I am the Messiah; you will see me vindicated; and my vindication will mean that I share the very throne of Israel’s God.  At last the masks are off, the secrets are out, the cryptic sayings and parables are left behind.  The son of man stands before the official ruler of Israel, declaring that God will prove him right, and the court in the wrong.”

 Throughout the book of Mark, there has been a Messianic secret.  Jesus has commanded the disciples to silence about His identity.  Jesus has commanded the demons to silence regarding His identity.  Jesus has commanded those whom He healed to silence regarding His identity, but here, in front of His accusers; in front of those who are waiting to put Him to death, He reveals Himself.  “I AM!” 

 And the high priest tore his robes.  This is a sign of deep distress.  This is a sign of anger and grievous wound.  This Jesus has placed Himself in a position only reserved for God.  Jesus has elevated Himself far too high.  Indeed this is blasphemy!!  All the rest of those gathered agreed and condemned Jesus to death.  They couldn’t handle the truth!  And so convinced of their rightness; so convinced are they of their position, they begin to slap Jesus and hit him.  Jewish law required that if a man is condemned of death, those who have accused that man are made to cast the first stones.  The members of the Sanhedrin are following through on this.  They are unabashedly killing the truth. 

They cannot stand in its presence. 

 It’s not surprising, because when we are confronted with the truth, we don’t like it either, and now I am going much deeper than those opening illustrations I used at the beginning of this sermon.  I am going straight to the source of all truth.  I am going straight to Jesus, and I am telling you this morning that if you stand in the presence of Jesus, you will find it a very painful experience.  You will find yourself cut to the core.  You will find yourself revealed in all of your weakness.  The truth hurts, and being in front of Jesus is no different.

 But...

 But...

   But...  Jesus is love.  Standing in front of Him won’t hurt.  He simply loves us; unquestioningly; without reservation.  Yes.  Indeed He does love us without reservation, but He loves us not because of who we are but in spite of who we are.  Let me say that again, Jesus loves us not because of who we are but in spite of who we are.  It is this that hurts most deeply when we come before Jesus because we are truly revealed.

 We are revealed as those who have murdered others simply by being angry with them.–Matthew chapter 5.

 We are revealed as those who have failed to give up our possessions and follow Him.–Luke chapter 14.

 We are revealed as those who did not love the Lord our God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength.  We are revealed as those who chase after false Gods.

 We are revealed as those who have failed to love our neighbor as ourselves.

 We are revealed as those who have failed to love our enemies and bless those who persecute us.

 We are revealed as those who talk the talk but fail miserably to walk the walk.

 We are revealed as those who want to justify our actions and make excuses instead of accepting our faults.

 We are revealed as those who would seek to escape the truth or have it silenced.

 If you ever stand in front of Jesus, these things cut you to the core, and you know deep down your failure.  You know deep down your own darkness.  You know deep down your sin.

 And it is at this point, where the great I AM stretches out His arms and dies for you.  It is at this point where you know you are not worthy of the truth, that the truth sets you free by saying, “I will take your sin upon myself.  I will offer you forgiveness.  I will clothe you with my righteousness that you may be blameless; you may be flawless.”

 The truth will go to the cross to right all your wrongs.  He loves you that much.  “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 by Him.”

 Ah, and once you experience these two things: once you are condemned by the truth and then embrace by it with its great love: no longer will you run from it.  No longer will you avoid it.  You will stand in it and upon it.  And you will unabashedly point to it–not as something you own or claim, but as the person who was unafraid to announce it; die and then rise as it.  You will point to the truth.  You will point to Jesus.  Amen.

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.

Seeing Before Receiving Sight

How do you know someone is telling the truth?

We live in an age of spin.  You’ve all seen it take place.  The President of the U.S. gives a speech, and less than a minute later, the media pundits start in, “Well, what the President REALLY just said was...”fill in the blank.  And if the President said something that was actually good, those on the opposing side of the fence will spin the words into something horrible.  If the President said something controversial, those who are on the same side of the fence offer any interpretation which will soften the words.  The speeches and spin leave your head reeling wondering if anyone heard the same thing you heard to begin with.

But this is not simply relegated to politics.  The quest for truth goes even further.  You are gathered here this morning listening to my sermon.  You will hear me interpret scripture in just a few moments.  There may be a few things that I say that will leave you scratching your head, so you may wonder where I am getting these things.  You could go home and do a search on Youtube for pastors who have preached on this same text.  You will find them saying some quite different things.  Which of us is right?  Which of us is telling the truth?  How can you judge?  Are we all right?  Are we all wrong?  Just for your information, as part of my sermon preparation, I will generally listen to around 10 sermons per week on a given biblical text.  I know how different these interpretations can be.  I know how well meaning most of us pastors are.  How do I discern what is true and what is not?  We’ll get there in a little while because I want to continue down this rabbit hole a little more.

In politics; in religion there is quite a bit of spin and difference given, but surely this doesn’t apply to real life.  Surely, the facts are the facts and there is no spinning them.  Right?  Wrong.  We just witnessed another horrendous shooting in California this past week.  Facts are being gathered.  Motives are being examined.  We know that one of the shooters spent a month in Syria, came back changed, and began growing his beard out.  We know he and his wife were Muslim.  Terrorist attack?  Workplace violence?  We’ve heard both–again depending upon how one wants to spin the event. Who is telling the truth?

I want to walk through this short text today from the book of Mark which recounts the healing of Bartamaeus, but I want to begin by putting it into the larger context of the book of Mark.  We have been walking through this book for some time now, and we’ve still got a ways to go.  We are actually completing a section on Mark that has focused on discipleship, and this section began with the healing of another blind person.  Several months ago, I preached a sermon about a blind man that Jesus had to “heal” twice.  This story began in Mark chapter 8, verse 22.  The first time Jesus touched him, the man responded that he could see people, but they looked like trees.  When Jesus looked at him intently and spoke, then the man was completely healed.

I talked about how this healing was not only historical, but it was also metaphorical.  It was also to help us see how oftentimes the disciples–and we–understand Jesus to be the Messiah, but we don’t see Him clearly.  Then, from Mark chapter 8:22 until today, we have seen example after example of disciples who understand that Jesus is the Messiah, that He is from God, that He is of great power and might, but they don’t understand ultimately what Jesus is all about.  The disciples and others around get caught up in power struggles; in hunger for prestige; in thinking that Jesus is too important for children; in their love of wealth; in a desire for status and privilege when Jesus comes into power.  Time and again, the disciples don’t see clearly, but today, we see someone who does.  Today we see someone who comes to a knowledge of the Truth.  Perhaps what Bartimaeus sees will help us see and come to know who speaks the Truth.

Jesus and his disciples are on the way to Jerusalem, and as they travel, they go by the city of Jericho.  Outside this city, on the side of the road is a man by the name of Bartimaeus.  He is blind, and he is begging.  If we take a moment to remember how this story is playing out, we know that the Jewish holiday of Passover is only days away.  Pilgrims from throughout Israel would travel to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, and many would pass by Jericho.  Bartimaeus knew this, so he situated himself where there would be deeply religious people passing him by–deeply religious
people who hopefully would have compassion on him.  But, as we see, there are many who don’t.

Bartimaeus hears that Jesus is passing by, and without hesitation or thought for embarrassment, Bartimaeus cries out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”  Now, what Bartimaeus says is important.  He does not simply cry out, Jesus, have mercy on me.  No.  He says, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”  You see, Son of David was a Messianic title.  Bartimaeus has no doubt heard about the things that Jesus has said and done.  Bartimaeus has come to realize something as he reflected on what Jesus had accomplished.  One of the best lines I heard this past week was this: what Bartimaeus lacked in eyesight, he made up for in insight.  He knew that Jesus was the Messiah.  He knew that Jesus was God’s anointed, and Bartimaeus addressed Jesus with this title; loudly; unabashedly; without reservation.

And the crowd tried to shut him up.  Now, granted, we don’t exactly know why the crowd tried to shut Bartimaeus up.  There could be several reasons.  The crowd could have been scared.  After all, if someone was addressing Jesus as, “Son of Man” or “Messiah” this could have been seen as seditious.  The Roman guards would have been extra cautious during Passover fearing an uprising with the gathering of so many Jews.  They would have been on alert for those who might be trying to start a revolt.  If someone was using Messianic language in such a case, the Roman guard could start arresting people just on pretense.  This is actually a pretty positive spin on why the crowd would have tried to silence Bartimaeus, but there is a negative possibility as well.

You see, as I have said before, in that day and age, there was a strong belief that if you had a physical ailment, then God had wrought that ailment upon you.  If you were blind, God was punishing you for your sin or your parents’ sin.  You were generally held in contempt by others.  You were seen as lower than low.  So, it is also a possibility that those in the crowd would have thought, “This blind, begging, sinner has no right to call upon Jesus in such a fashion.  He is being punished by God and should not be trying to get the attention of a holy man.”  Given what Mark has shown us in the previous two chapters, I think the odds are better that the crowd was not being kind to Bartimaeus.  My guess is they thought he had no business calling out to Jesus.  They tried to shut him up.

But Bartimaeus was undaunted.  Bartimaeus did not give in to the crowd’s attempts to shut him up.  This was too important.  The Son of David was at hand.  The Messiah was here.  And if Bartimaeus knew anything of Scripture, he knew that the Messiah had promised to bring about healing and restoration.  In the words of the prophet Isaiah, the Messiah “bring good news to the poor...to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”  To bring recovery of sight to the blind.  Bartimaeus knew this, and he believed it.  Is it any wonder he was clamoring for Jesus’ attention?  Is it any wonder he was raising his voice when others tried to shout him down?  Bartimaeus trusted the promise!  Bartimaeus trusted that Jesus was the promised Messiah who would do what Isaiah said.  “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me.”

And Jesus stood still.  Mark Edwards, in his commentary says this, “How remarkable that the Son of Man allows the cries of a poor and powerless person to stop him in his tracks.”  Some people have said to me and asked me whether or not God cares about ones as insignificant as us.  Why would God hear our cries and our prayers when we are so small and insignificant compared to Him.  And yet, the Son of David, God incarnate, stops in His tracks because of the cries of a poor and powerless man.  This is the God revealed to us here–a God who deeply cares about the least and the lost.  Jesus says, “Call him here.”

How quickly the crowd changes its tune.  How quickly they discard their cries for quiet.  How quickly they suddenly accept Bartimaeus when Jesus shows him compassion.  Think this is just limited to them?  I remember once attending the ordination of a colleague.  My wife and I sat at the back of the church.  As is custom for me, I was not wearing my clerical collar.  I did not robe up.  I simply attended–a stranger in the midst of this congregation.  My wife and I were heartily ignored by all around us–until it came time for the laying on of hands.  All clergy were invited to come forward, so I whiffed out my clerical collar, put it on, and laid hands on the man being ordained.  When I returned to the pew with my wife, the reception we received was markedly different.  Because of a collar?  How quickly things change.

There is an important detail that happens next.  Bartimaeus throws off his cloak.  This might not seem like much to us, but remember that Bartimaeus is a blind, beggar.  What do you think his possessions consist of?  He has nothing–except his cloak.  The commentaries I consulted and sermons I heard made note that Bartimaeus would have spread his cloak on the ground to catch coins that people gave him.  He would have used it to wrap up in to keep warm as he had no place to go.  He would have used it to give him shade from the son.  It was the thing he used for protection; for earning a living; it was all that he had.  And he cast it off.  He comes before Jesus with nothing.  Remember the rich young man who could do no such thing?

Bartimaeus comes before Jesus, and Jesus asks him a pointed question, “What do you want me to do for you?”  I want you to remember last week when James and John sought out an audience with Jesus.  I want you to remember how these two disciples of the inner circle begged Jesus to give them whatever they asked.  I want you to remember how Jesus responded.  Do you remember?  It was with the same question, “What do you want me to do for you?”  James and John ask for power and prestige and status.  James and John don’t get the Kingdom of God.  Bartimaeus does.  “He has come to bring recovery of sight to the blind,” Isaiah says.  “Rabbouni,” Bartimaeus says, “Let me see.”

Again, let me quote Mark Edwards.  Your bulletin says, “Teacher, let me see, but the Greek word is Rabbouni which is significant.   Edwards says, “In extant Jewish literature, rabbouni is seldom used with reference to humanity, and practically never as a form of address.  It is frequently used as an address to God in prayer, however.  Its use here suggests Bartimaeus’s–and Mark’s–estimation of Jesus.”  Bartimaeus essentially offers a prayer, “Let me see.”

And Jesus says, “Go, your faith has saved you.”

What does Bartimaeus do?  He has been released from the captive of his blindness.  He now has the ability to go and work.  He now has the ability to earn a living.  He will now be seen by others to be blessed by God for he no longer carries the curse of blindness.  He can go anywhere and do anything, so what does he do?

He follows Jesus along the road.  Now, an interesting thing can be said right here because the Greek word for road is “hodos” which is also translated, “The Way.”  In the early Church, Christians were not initially called Christians.  Initially, they were called followers of “The Way.”  Bartimaeus follows Jesus along the Way.  Here is an example of discipleship at its finest.  When those closest to Jesus couldn’t see and had difficulty seeing, this once blind beggar trusts Jesus, throws off his cloak, is healed, and follows Jesus toward the cross.  He truly sees.  He has found the Truth.  How can we?

As you can see at this point, I am asking you to delve deeply into this question of truth.  I am asking you to look at Jesus to understand the Truth.  I am asking you to look to Jesus to give you the criteria in understanding how to discern the Truth.  I am asking you to see what Bartimaeus sees.

And what does Bartimaeus see?  He sees the Messiah–the one who brings about restoration.  But, as we have seen all along, the restoration Jesus brings is not by military might, but as the verse leading right into this story says, “He came to give His life as a ransom for many.”

Jesus came to be the suffering Messiah who dies on the cross to give His life for yours.  He does this because He loves you with a love beyond measure.  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.”

Why is this so significant?  Why is this such an important thing in knowing the Truth?  Because of this: when you look at people who spin things today, they have an agenda.  They are trying to win you over to their position.  They are trying to further their own positions of power and prestige.  They are trying to get you to go along with them, and if you do not...guess what they think of you?  Guess how they treat you?  With contempt.  With scorn.  With anger.  Sometimes with hatred.  If you don’t agree with them, they want nothing to do with you.

But how does Jesus respond when you don’t agree with Him?  How does Jesus respond when you don’t like what He teaches?  How does Jesus respond when you inwardly and outwardly say to Him, “I won’t do what you say.”

Jesus stretches out His arms and dies for you.  Jesus loves you and is willing to die for you even when you don’t love Him.  How do you know if someone is telling the truth?  How do you know when someone is immersed in the truth?  When they are willing to die for you even though they know you hate them.  This is Jesus.  This is what Bartimaeus saw.  This is what I pray that we might see.  Amen.

Peace in a Pluralistic World

    One of the major issues confronting our world is its shrinkage.  You may scratch your head for a moment on that comment thinking, “Isn’t the earth the same size as it has been for billions of years?  There aren’t parts of it eroding into space, are there?”  No.  That’s not the kind of shrinkage I am talking about.  It’s the shrinkage that has been ongoing since the development of more types and faster types of travel and communication.  It is in this regard that I think the world is getting smaller.

    Consider this, 150 years ago, if you wanted to know what was going on half-way around the world, you had to wait days, if not weeks or months to find out.  Letters from overseas were carried upon horseback to an awaiting boat–most probably a sail boat although steam engines were beginning to arrive on the scene.  The letter would arrive and be delivered on horseback to its location, but if you were very lucky, the railroad might be able to carry it a bit faster to your location.  Communication took time–a long time.  Travel took time–much longer than it does now.  Today, we have instant communication anywhere in the world by satellite phone or internet.  We can board an airplane today and in less than 24 hours can be sitting on the other side of the world.  We can drive down to Katy in under an hour’s time whereas 100 years ago it would have taken half a day.  The world has shrunk because of technology, and that has had some consequences.

    Among those consequences is that we are now forced to rub shoulders with people who are vastly different than we are.  We are now coming into contact with people of all sorts of races, religions, worldviews and identities.  If you engage this world in any way, you will run into people who do not look like you, think like you, or act like you.  Amazingly enough, we are doing a pretty good job of coexisting in this world without destroying each other; but there is quite a bit of tension–quite a bit of tension.

    We see that tension rear its head in politics; in spirited debate; in the various wars around the world.  There is heightened tension right now between Israel and Palestine.  There is heightened tension between Democrats and Republicans.  There is heightened tension between conservatives and liberals.  There is heightened tension between those who believe in God and those who are atheist.  There is heightened tension between Christians and Muslims.  Various worldviews around the world are in a constant struggle to interact and offer people a sense of belonging and sense of understanding about the nature of reality.  And there is a struggle for truth–which worldview is true and leads us to respect and honor one another?

    Some have argued that no one worldview can have a hold on the truth.  No one worldview or religion can grasp ultimate truth if that ultimate truth even exists.  In fact, some use a rather fascinating illustration to show this.  It’s an illustration called the “Blind Men and the Elephant.” Perhaps you have heard it.  Depending on the version, five or six blind men encounter an elephant, and each of them touch a different part of the elephant.  After their encounter, the men argue about what the elephant is like.  One argues the elephant is like a rope–long, narrow, and stringy, because he touched the tail.  One argues the elephant is like a wall because he touched the torso.  One argues the elephant is like a tree truck as he touched the leg.  One argues the elephant is like a hose because he touched the trunk.  Another argues the elephant is like a spear, long and sharp because he touched the tusk.  Round and round and round they argue–all of them, in one way right, and all of them in one way wrong.  And, some argue, that’s the way with religions and worldviews.  All of them get something right.  All of them get something wrong.  Leslie Newbigin gave a rebuttal of sorts to this parable as he realized something: you cannot say that all worldviews have something right and something wrong unless you can see the entire perspective of reality yourself.  You cannot possibly know all worldviews have something right and something wrong unless you yourself know the truth!  Therefore, people who try to tell you that reality is this way are simply trying to convert you to their way of thinking!  They have no idea if it’s true or not.  It is just another competing worldview.

    The Christian worldview offers a particular way of looking at the world, and it is a way that unabashedly claims to know the truth while honoring and respecting those outside its belief system.  It seeks converts but does not seek to harm or hurt those outside the faith.  Now, that has not been the case because there are those who have warped Christianity’s teachings, but this morning, I would like to show you what Christianity teaches using this little snippet from Mark chapter nine.

    This little piece begins with the disciple John coming up to Jesus and saying, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.”  Now, keep in mind the following points: first, remember that just a few verses earlier Mark recounted how the disciples were UNABLE to cast out a demon.  So it is with no great irony that John is trying to stop someone else from successfully doing what the disciples were unsuccessful at accomplishing.  Secondly, immediately preceding John’s statement was Jesus’ teaching on greatness.  “Whoever wants to be first of all must be last of all and servant of all.”  Does it strike you how John, who is speaking for the rest of the disciples as well, doesn’t quite seem to get humility?  Finally, consider this last point which was rammed home to me by James Edwards in his commentary on this text.  I never even considered this point until I read it, and it makes absolute sense to me now.  Edwards says, “John’s report that the independent exorcist ‘was not following us’ is depressingly ironic.  We should expect him to say ‘because he was not following you.’  Is it not a little presumptuous at this stage of discipleship for John to think himself and the other disciples as worthy of being followed?”  I hope you caught Edwards’ gist there.  John and the disciples are still quite consumed with themselves.  They think they are something special because they follow Jesus.  They rank themselves with Jesus, but in reality, it’s not about them!!!  It’s never supposed to be about them or us!!  It’s always supposed to be about Jesus!!!

            Which is why Jesus replies to them, “‘Do not stop him [and the Greek gives you the sense of “do not stop him or anyone like him now or ever]; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterwards to speak evil of me.”  Now, I want to point out quickly here that the other exorcist was not casting out demons in the name of any other religion or in the name of any other god.  Some might like to take Jesus’ words and expand them to all religions here.  You cannot do that.  Jesus said plainly and clearly that this was being done in His name.  When someone does something in Jesus’ name, we are called to humbly step back.  We are called to celebrate what they are doing.  For anyone who does something in Jesus’ name is not against us.  We are working toward the same goal and purpose–if we are working in. Jesus’.  Name. 

    Of course, that now raises the question of, “Well, what if someone is not doing anything in Jesus’ name?”

    Jesus continues, “41For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.”  Some have massively misinterpreted this verse.  They have suggested that if we are doing even the littlest of actions, then we will be rewarded.  They suggest that Christianity is about doing all sorts of little things with great love, but you need to look very, very carefully at what Jesus says here.  This is not about the actions of His disciples.  This is about the actions of those who are outside the circle of Christianity.  This is about those who are not following Jesus.  “Whoever gives YOU a cup of water to drink BECAUSE YOU BEAR THE NAME OF CHRIST will by no means lose the reward.”  If there are those outside the faith who welcome you; who embrace you; who are kind to you, Jesus sees that as a welcoming of Himself.  Try to wrap your head around that for a moment.  Even if someone does not believe in Him or trust Him, when they care for you, they are caring for Jesus, and Jesus honors that.  Which means, if Jesus is honoring the actions of those who care for us in such a manner, should we not do the same?  Of course we should, and I will return to this in just a minute after dealing with the final verse.

    Jesus finishes, “‘If any of you put a stumbling-block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea.”  This comment would have called up historical precedent because the Roman army had inflicted this exact punishment some Jewish Zealots who had tried to rebel against them under Judas the Galilean (Lane 346)1.   Again, let me point out that Jesus is reinforcing the idea that we should not inhibit someone who is striving to do good in His name.  In our zealous nature to make sure everyone does everything “right” we may cause others to stumble. We may cause others to fall.  We may cause others to walk away from the faith, and Jesus says this would be cause for us to have a millstone hung around our necks and us be cast into the ocean. 

    Again, the problem confronted throughout this particular teaching by Jesus is the problem of self-righteousness.  John and the other disciples thought they were better than this other exorcist because of their close association with Jesus.  Humility was severely lacking.  If we look down our noses at those who are outside of the Christian faith and treat them as less than those created in the image of God, this again is self-righteousness.  If we go around criticizing others for trying to follow Christ in a manner that we think is wrong or undignified or less than perfect, then we are being self-righteous.  And this self-righteousness comes from thinking that religion and following Jesus focuses on our actions.

    This is exactly where Christianity diverges massively from the rest of the world’s religions.  For the rest of the world’s religions focus on what we do.  They say we must do the right things to be accepted.  We must accomplish good works or the deity will turn against us.  This leads us to either despair because we do not believe we can accomplish those works or it leads us to become self-righteous because we think we are accomplishing those works and others should do like we do.

    But Christianity says we are not saved by our works.  We are not saved by casting out demons.  We are not saved by bringing cups of water.  We are not saved by living perfectly, morally, and uprightly.  We are not saved by telling everyone else how they should or should not act.  We are saved totally and completely by sheer grace.  Let me repeat that again, you are only saved by sheer grace.  You are saved only and completely by Jesus and His actions on your behalf.  You are saved only by what Jesus accomplished for you on the cross by dying the death you deserved.  You have no righteousness to stand on.

    St. Paul put it this way in the third chapter of the book of Philippians, “If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.  7 Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. 8More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through trust in Christ, the righteousness from God based on trust.”

    You see, Paul had every right to think that his works had guaranteed him righteousness with God, and Paul was indeed self-righteous.  He persecuted the church because he thought he could accomplish the works of the law.  But Jesus appeared to Paul and radically changed his worldview.  Paul knew that Jesus came into the world and saved him by sheer grace.  No longer could Paul trust in himself.  Paul knew he must trust in Jesus.

    And when you trust in Jesus, when you trust in His work on the cross, several things become abundantly clear.  First, you know that you have seen God.  You have seen the Truth.  For you have seen the God who became flesh.  Secondly, you are humbled because you know that you did nothing to deserve what you have been given.  Your heart is no longer hardened because you know that Jesus died for you when you least deserved it and were living in sin.  And finally, you have a heart for others.  You cherish those who work in Jesus’ name, and you see those who do not work in Jesus’ name as those created in the image of God who God longs to bring into fellowship with Him.  You long to bring them the news of what Jesus accomplished on the cross.  For even though Jesus indeed died for you, you remember John 3:16 and 17.

    “For God so loved the world–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–THE WORLD–not to condemn the world, but that the world–THE WORLD–might be saved through Him.”  If we know that Jesus came to save the WORLD, we know that means all of the people in it.  If your heart is touched by this, I invite you to delve further into the Christian worldview, for I think you will find within it the Truth who brings peace to this shrinking world.  Amen.

1. New International Commentary on the New Testament. “The Gospel of Mark”. William Lane.

This is Most Certainly True

    We do not know how to wrestle with Truth.
   
Why would I say such a thing?
   
I am going to go back a few years to 9/11 when radical Islamists hijacked four airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentegon, and intended to crash into the capitol building.  Initially, we came together as a nation to recognize this attack against us, but then we began disagreeing, sometimes vehemently, on how to respond.  There was a particular struggle in how to handle religious ideology –especially in trying to deal with a religious sect that believed it had the absolute Truth and used that belief to justify the killing of innocent people.

    There were two basic responses to this.  Fortunately, most people know that both responses in and of themselves are inadequate, but we have yet to find a happy medium–if such a thing is even possible.  Why would I say that?  Let me begin to define the problem as I see it.

    As we began to delve into the psyche of those who hijacked the planes, we began to focus on their absolute certainty in their beliefs about God.  We reasoned, “If they wouldn’t have been so absolutely certain, they would have been more humble.  They would have known that flying those planes into those buildings was wrong.  All those people would not have been killed if religious nuts wouldn’t be so certain of their beliefs and try to force them on everyone else.” 

    And so, there has been a concerted effort among some to question anyone who has certainty in his or her religious convictions.  Certainty is the enemy in no uncertain terms, and if anyone espouses certainty, then that person is close minded, arrogant, a fanatic, exclusive, or whatever derogatory term you wish to apply.  Now, there are a couple of problems with these trains of thought.

    First is the premise.  Does certainty necessarily cause people to kill others?  Does believing in God with absolute conviction necessarily lead a person to commit atrocities?  The answer, of course, is no.  As Timothy Keller once reported in his book Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, “You never hear of an Amish terrorist.”  Why?  Because the Amish believe uncompromisingly that God commands them to be non-violent.  Their firm religious conviction leads them to be passivist.  So, it’s not religious certainty that leads someone to kill others in the name of faith, there must be something else.  We will get to that in just a moment.

    The second problem with a war on certainty is that it is logically impossible.  You may wonder what I mean by that.  Just this: the next time someone comes up to you and says, “We cannot be certain about anything.”  Ask them, “Are you certain about that?”  Do you see the problem?  Even if someone wants to narrow it down and say, “We can never be certain about any claims about religion.”  Well, you have just made a truth claim about religious belief.  How can you say with certainty that we can have no certainty?  The statement is self-defeating.  Everyone believes they know something.  Everyone has to have some sort of certainty in order to simply function.  It is a requirement.

   Thirdly, can you imagine anyone preaching a sermon with no certainty?  Can you imagine what it would be like for someone to get up in front of a group of people and basically say, "Well IF God exists--now, we don't know for sure.  Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't.--then maybe that God is good.  Again, maybe God is evil, but perhaps God is love.  And IF that God is love, then maybe, just maybe that God wants us to care for each other, but we really don't know what that God wants if God even exists.  But it might be a good idea to care for each other anyway.  I can't tell you that for certain, but it might be a good idea."  Yeah, how many of you would stick around for that kind of sermon?  Certainty is necessary. Even in religious belief.

    But if certainty is necessary, then why did religious fanatics hijack planes and kill people?  Why do some “Christians” picket funerals of military personnel and cause extra grief for families?  Why do some people of religious persuasion have a holier-than-thou demeanor and look down their noses at others?

    It’s not because of certainty.  It’s because of self-righteousness.  It’s because they believe they are better than other people.  It’s because they believe they are able to follow the tenets of a particular religion, and they believe everyone else should be able to accomplish what they accomplish.  They believe their performance makes them righteous before God, and “if I can do it, everyone else should be doing it too.”  And if they are not doing it, “then they are of less value than myself.  They are destined to hell.  They deserve punishment.”  You see, it’s not certainty that leads to the demeaning and killing of others, it is self-righteousness. 

    And so, we have these two extremes: we have those who don’t want any certainty, and they are convinced that the world would be better if no one had any convictions; and we have those who are consumed with the certainty that they are righteous and everyone else needs to get with the program.  And the reality is, there are many of us who actually jump between these two poles depending upon the circumstances.  If we don’t like something that someone tries to tell us about faith, we are happy to say, “No one can be certain.”  However, if we want others to fall into line with our own train of thought, we will gladly say, “God is (fill in the blank)...”  In some ways, we are either too open, too closed, or we gladly jump between the two extremes to suit our own agendas.

    You may be wondering just what this has to do with our Gospel lesson from the seventh chapter of the book of Mark.  Perhaps it is time to turn to that now.

    Jesus has an encounter with a man who is deaf and who has a speech impediment.  Jesus is in the midst of a journey through Gentile territory when they– bring to Jesus a man who is deaf and “mogilalon.”  Now I know that sounded strange.  I gave you the Greek word for a speech impediment, because it is an important word.  It is only used once in the entire New Testament–right here by Mark.  And there is a very important reason Mark uses this particular word. 

    It is the same word used in Isaiah chapter 35:6.  I’m going to turn to Isaiah 35 now and read verses four to six to you so that you can see what is going on here.  “4 Say to those who are of a fearful heart, ‘Be strong, do not fear!  Here is your God.  He will come with vengeance, with terrible recompense.  He will come and save you.’  5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; 6 then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the “mogilalos” the speechless sing for joy.”

    Mark is unequivocally tying Jesus encounter with this mogilalon to the promised coming of God in Isaiah 35.  Mark is showing us, once again, that this Jesus is the promised One–the promised Messiah–God Himself coming to earth.  And what Jesus does here to this deaf, mogilalon, speech impediment bound man is nothing short of amazing as He offers extreme compassion.

    First, Jesus takes the man aside.  I want you to contemplate this for just a moment as we remember what it would be like for this man given the culture he was in.  For you see, they didn’t have special places to care for those who were deaf and unable to speak in those days.  They didn’t have sign language.  They didn’t see people in such conditions as contributing members of society who had worth and value.  Most folks who were suffering from disabilities were outcasts; mocked; degraded; seen as burdens to the rest of people; contemptuous.  This guy could see, but he would never have been able to hear the insults thrown his way.  He would not be able to understand people’s contempt or hatred.  If he entered Jewish territory, there was then a whole other layer to contend with: for most of the Jewish religious authorities believed that if you suffered with such a malady, then you were under the curse of God. 

    So, Jesus, God incarnate, takes this man aside–away from the crowd and gives him His full attention.  Imagine being a Jew who was hearing this story.  Here is a man who would be seen under God’s curse standing before God with a private audience.  What was God going to do with this cursed individual?  What was God going to do with this man who was an outcast; on the fringes; who was looked down upon and seen as contemptuous?

    As we read through the text, we might think that Jesus is a bit gross, but as I heard in more than one sermon this past week, Jesus is doing something quite amazing.  He is communicating with this deaf, tongue tied man in his own form of sign language.  Jesus puts His fingers in the man’s ears as if to say, “I know your ears do not work.”  Jesus spits on the man’s tongue. “I know your tongue is tied.”  Jesus looks us to heaven.  “God knows your bondage.”  Jesus sighs deeply.  “I am praying to God.”  Then Jesus says, “Ephphatha” which in Aramaic means, “be opened.”  I am sure the man saw Jesus’ lips move.  He had no idea what Jesus said, but he could not mistake the meaning of the word for immediately after Jesus’ lips moved, the man’s ears were opened, and the chains fell off his tongue.  That’s the imagery Mark uses.  The man’s ears were opened and the chains fell off his tongue.  Mark’s imagery here is beautiful.  Jesus reaches out to one who was shunned.  Jesus brings him into a special place alone.  Jesus communicates with the man and shows the man He understands his problems, and Jesus heals the man and restores him to community.

    Jesus’ healing causes quite the stir, but Jesus’ response is quite intriguing.  Jesus tells everyone keep things quiet.  Don’t talk about what I have done.  But the crowd, the man who was just healed kept talking.  Jesus said, “Hush!”  Everyone talked louder.  They proclaimed, “He has done everything well!!”  Jesus said, “Quiet!!” to no avail.  Why would Jesus tell them to hush?  Why would He tell everyone to keep it under wraps?

    The best answer I came across was this: Jesus didn’t want everyone focused on Him simply being a miracle worker.  Jesus didn’t want everyone to think that He was simply here to take away people’s pain and suffering.  Jesus didn’t want everyone just to see Him as the fixer upper of a person’s personal life.  No.  Jesus was much more than that.  Jesus was not here simply to fix all of our problems and make our lives perfect.  Jesus was not here to give us a comfortable position in all that we encountered.  Jesus was about restoration.  Jesus was about mending the relationship between humankind and God–a relationship broken by our hardened hearts, our self-righteous behavior, and our desire to submit ourselves to no authority but our own.  Jesus did not come to simply open ears and tongues, but open hearts to redemption.

    And so we return to the problems of self-righteousness and uncertainty.  We return to them because these are both ways of hardened hearts.  These are both ways of selfish behavior.  I become self-righteous when I think I can follow all of the commands of God–particularly the one’s I like.  I impose those beliefs on others because they should do what I do and be like me.  Oh, but if I am confronted by another’s beliefs in God or in what they think I should do, I will respond, “No one can know for certain God’s will or mind.”  At the heart of this problem is a hardened heart–a closed heart–a heart that is closed in on itself. 

    How does Jesus open such a heart?  How does Jesus change such a heart?  What language does He speak to us to help us see our problem?

    First, He speaks by living the life we were supposed to live.  He reveals to us our own failure to love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind, and with all our strength.  Jesus reveals to us our inability to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.  Jesus does all these things well.  He does them perfectly.  He shows us the depths of our own sin.  Just like last week with the Syrophonecian woman, Jesus challenges us and shows us we deserve nothing for our selfish behavior.  Jesus becomes perfectly righteous, putting us all to shame.

    And then, revealing to us that He knows our condition–He knows our selfishness; He knows our shame; He knows our separation from God–He understands our inability to reconcile ourselves unto God, it is He who stretches out His hands and allows nails to be placed in them.  He sheds His precious blood as He hangs from the cross.  He looks heavenward and with a deep breath cries aloud, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?!”  In that moment, Jesus experienced the wrath and separation from God that you and I were meant to feel.  He experienced God’s silence as He suffered.  He bore the weight of our sin when we least deserved it.  He poured out His love while we were sinners restoring us to God.

    And because of Jesus’ actions, we have complete certainty about two things: number one we are sinful and unrighteous on our own.  We cannot look down our nose at anyone because we all fall short of the glory of God.  We cannot look at another with contempt and hatred because we deserve contempt and hatred.  We cannot kill another for a lack of believing because we lacked faith and trust in God ourselves as we trusted in our own works.  This should make us hang our heads in shame.  But that leads us to the second thing we can be certain about: that God loves us more than we can imagine.  For the Author and creator of the universe was willing to die on our behalf.  He was willing to die for us when we least deserved it.  He was willing to give of Himself to pay for our transgressions. 

    And when you hold onto these two certainties. When you hold them in dynamic tension: that you are undeserving and loved; when you are a failure yet accepted, then your heart is opened too.  Not because of what you do, but because of sheer grace.  A grace rooted in the Gospel:

    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 may be saved through Him.  This is most certainly true.  Amen.

Speaking Truth to Power

I remember vividly conversations held time and again while I was in college, seminary, and then amongst colleagues.  Well, perhaps I shouldn't sound like my memory is infallible for I do not remember vividly the details of said conversations, but I do remember a theme which has been prevalent--especially with those who believe Christians should work to influence the political process and seek laws which are in accord with biblical theology:

We must speak truth to power!

In my particular denomination, this phrase connotes a strong prophetic theme.  Just as the prophets confronted the rulers of Israel and Judah for their injustices, we too must be prophetic.  We too must convince our rulers to seek justice: to care for the widow, the orphan, and the needy.

My schooling was heavily influenced by liberation theologians of one flavor or another, and this theme ran prevalent in all of them as well.  Those in power must be confronted.  We must speak truth to power!

The Church indeed must wrestle with a very important question: how are we to live together?  Many argue that this is the nature of politics.  How do we live and move and work with one another.  This is a question that the Church must enter into regularly as we engage Christians, non-Christians, religious and secular.  We are not isolated from our surrounding communities, and ethics always plays a role in the midst of our daily lives.

Yet, how do we engage the powers of our day?  How do we engage the leaders in our respective cities, states, and nations?  (Obvious American bias right there.)

One of the most interesting things, at least to me, regarding Christianity is how it has managed to thrive under just about every type of government imposed by humanity.  It has survived monarchies, democracy, communism, socialism, and everything in between.  No government has been able to squash it fully--although some have managed to repress it severely.

Sometimes, Christians have the privilege of engaging governmental powers without fear of reprisal.  Sometimes engaging governmental powers is a life or death matter.  It depends upon which type of government you engage.

Which leads us to the point where we must ask: how should we engage our government?  How should we seek to influence the political process?  How should we "speak truth to power?"

For I think the phrase is well worth using, but perhaps in a not so conventional way.

Len Sweet at the Theological Conference I attended a few weeks ago nailed the group with a question.  It was a question yours truly has wrestled with previously and made an argument for.  "When you hear the word Truth, what picture do you get in your head?"  Sweet asked.

In my head, I saw Jesus.  "I am the way and the truth and the life," He said.

Sweet followed up, "For we believe truth is not a concept but a person."

A definite point of agreement here.

Truth indeed, for the Christian, is not a concept but a person.  I think we tend to forget this when we seek to influence the writing of legislation.  We tend to focus on getting certain laws passed thinking that in so doing we are proclaiming the truth.  We are not.  Laws do not proclaim Jesus.

Interestingly enough, Scripture provides a fascinating look into the early Church and its engagement with the powers that be.  I encourage readers to take a look at Acts 24 and following. 

Notice how Paul handles himself as he comes before the powers that be of his day.  See what he is trying to accomplish.  Pay particular attention to Agrippa's statement in Acts 26:

Agrippa said to Paul, ‘Are you so quickly persuading me to become a Christian?’ 

Paul replied, ‘Whether quickly or not, I pray to God that not only you but also all who are listening to me today might become such as I am—except for these chains.’

Speaking the Truth to power.

Speaking Jesus to power.

That all may become as we are.

I have to wonder about my denomination's "advocacy" office in Washington, D.C.  Are they operating like St. Paul or like the prophets?  Are they speaking the truth to power or speaking The Truth to power? 

One of these things is not like the other.

Go Ahead. Protest. For All the Good it Will (not) Do.

My thoughts turned to the protests occurring in select areas of the U.S. after several stories showing questionable to infuriating behavior by police:

The Michael Brown case in Ferguson, MO
The Eric Garner case in Staten Island, NY
The Tamir Rice case in Cleveland, OH

In two cases, grand juries did not issue indictments against the police officers.  We are still waiting on the third. 

People are angry.  Some of them justifiably.  They are taking to the streets; to the schools; to colleges and universities; and other arenas to voice their displeasure with the system and call for change and justice.

Good luck.

As the Occupy Movement I think has discovered, so will these: no real change will be forthcoming.  There will be no justice. 

Why do I say such a thing? 

It's not because I am a pessimist.  It's not necessarily because I am a realist.  It's because I don't think we have a shared agreement of what justice is.  We are a nation that is floating and adrift because we no longer have shared understandings about what words mean.  We have lost any sense of transcendent meaning.  We have no idea what Justice--with a capital J--means.  We have lost any sense of what is ultimately right and what is ultimately wrong, and you cannot have Justice without knowing what is right and what is wrong.

We live in a society where we parse words and sayings, take them out of context, and mold them and shape them to suit our own understandings and definitions.  We twist things to suit our own particular motivations and agendas.   In doing so, we can excuse certain behaviors and actions that blatantly contradict the law.

For instance, the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights is explicit in Amendment 4:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Try to cite it as you go through an airport.  Is it "reasonable" to search every single person who boards a plane?  Think about it.  If you question being searched, you will be detained--possibly arrested, certainly inconvenienced. 

Amendment 2

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For the better part of the history of our nation, this was an assurance that folks could own fire arms without any infringement.  Not so today.  Not in the least. 

In both of these cases, Constitutional scholars disagree vehemently as to how these texts should be interpreted.  They parse and define words to suit their own particular points of view, and leave many scratching their heads as to how such interpretations are arrived at.

How does such a thing happen?

In a word: postmodernism.  Rooted and grounded in Nietzsche's philosophy (reason taken to its ultimate, logical conclusion), postmodernity has removed any sort of transcendent, overarching narrative which joins any culture or people together.  It removed any shared definition of words and stories.  Everything now hinges upon perspective.  You see something from one particular point of view.  I see it from another, and who is to say who is correct?  Who is to say whose interpretation is true?  If you even think to know the Truth, then you are arrogant and wishful. 

This train of thought has seeped into our culture and infected it.  Yes, I used the term infected purposely for perspectivism leads down a dark road--a very dark one.  For there can be no agreed upon definition of good.  There can be no agreed upon definition of evil.  There can be no agreed upon definition of justice.  Ultimately, it is the ones who are in power who call the shots and define the terms as they see fit.  And if you wish to rise up, you may.  However, make sure you are strong enough and powerful enough to overthrow those in power.  For in the end, only might makes right.

You might think me jesting in such commentary, but allow me to take us to Ferguson, MO for just a moment and to the aftermath of the grand jury's decision.  Let us visit the riots and looting and burning of local businesses. 

Who of us if walking into one of these stores broke windows and doors and took merchandise would not be guilty of burglary?  Who of us would not stand accused and arrested if caught?  Many would consider our actions wrong for they violate the law.

But were there those excusing such behavior?  Were there those defending those who did such things appealing to extraneous circumstances?  Yes.  So that which is wrong wasn't necessarily as wrong as once thought because of the reasons behind the looting and rioting and burning.

Right isn't necessarily right.
Wrong isn't necessarily wrong.
It just depends upon where you sit and from what perspective you view the events.

And yet, there is the cry for justice?  Will the shop owners get justice?  Or is justice the crowd's burning of those shops?  Tell me.  Please.  Inquiring minds want to know.

Until we can begin to arrive at a place where we share definitions...
Until we can arrive at a place where we have an understanding of right and wrong...
Until we can arrive at a place where we have an agreed understanding of justice...

Your protests are meaningless!!  They will not change anything!!!

But it is not enough simply to point out that which is wrong.  Alternatives must be offered.  I point toward C.S. Lewis as a starting place.

C.S. Lewis in his book the Abolition of Man includes the following allegory about his own journey to Christianity.  During that journey Lewis was "captured" by the Spirit of the Age.  Here is what Lewis writes:

Every day a jailor brought the prisoners their food, and as he laid down the dishes he would say a word to them.  If their meal was flesh, he would remind them that they were eating corpses, or give them some account of the slaughtering: or, if it was the inwards of some beast, he would read them a lecture in anatomy and show the likeness of the mess to the same parts in themselves...Or if the meal were eggs, he would recall to them that they were eating the menstruum of a verminous fowl, and crack a few jokes with the female prisoner.  So he went on day by day.  Then I dreamed that one day there was nothing but milk for them, and the jailor said as he put down the pipkin:

'Our relations with the cow are not delicate--as you can easily see if you imagine eating any of her other secretions.'

Now John had been in the pit a shorter time than any of the others: and at these words something seemed to snap in his head and he gave a great sigh and suddenly spoke out in a loud, clear voice: 

'Thank heaven!  Now at last I know that you are talking nonsense.'

'What do you mean?' said the jailor, wheeling round upon him.

'You are trying to pretend that unlike things are like.  You are trying to make us think that milk is the same sort of thing as sweat or dung.'

'And pray, what difference is there except by custom?'

'Are you a liar or a fool, that you see no difference between that which Nature casts out as refuse and that which she stores up as food?'

'So Nature is a person, then, with purposes and consciousness,' said the jailor with a sneer.  'In fact, a Landlady.  No doubt it comforts you to imagine you can believe that sort of thing;' and he turned to leave the prison with his nose in the air.

'I know nothing about that,' shouted John after him.  'I am talking of what happens.  Milk does feed calves and dung does not.'

Are we willing to point out the lies and the foolishness of those who want to lead us down paths of relativism?  Are we willing to challenge those who say there is no transcendence?  Are we willing to say unequivocally, "There is such a thing as Justice!  There is such a thing as Truth!"

Of course, you might say, "Isn't this an arrogant sort of approach?  Are you telling me that you have the Truth?"

No.  I don't.  But I think the late Dallas Willard was onto something when he said, "Truth in belief and idea is, in a certain respect, similar to the sighting mechanism on a gun or rocket: if correctly used it enables us to hit what we hope to.  But in truth's case we need not see what we are aiming at.  Truth and the meaning upon which it rests takes care of the aim itself."

I am not certain we relish a search for Truth.  I am not certain we are willing to argue it passionately and vehemently anymore.  In the name of tolerance, we have pushed the quest for Truth to the back burners and decided should accept the idea of truths.  It won't work.  Not now.  Not in the long run.  Without any semblance of Truth, we will never have Justice.  Remember that as you protest.