Since leaving the traditional institutional expression of “church” about six years ago, there have been so many changes in my thinking and perspective. Things that used to be so important to me ceased to seem that important. And other things that seemed to be so trivial or unimportant before suddenly took on new meaning.

Easter is one of those things that ceased seeming to be so important. No, I do not mean that the resurrection of Jesus ceased to have any importance for me! But what I mean is that the single day of celebrating that changed dramatically for me.

When I was working in the institution, Easter was one of the biggest days of the year work-wise. It usually involved quite a bit of musical preparation (perhaps a cantata, or just extra-big congregational music). We would celebrate the resurrection and all that it meant to us like we would never have the chance to do so again.  At least we wouldn’t really get that chance for another year…

So what has changed for me? The resurrection now seems significant to me every day of the year. It’s no longer something to be singled out one day a year, but rather is a life-changing, life-altering, life-encompassing thing for me now.

For me, the resurrection “tops off” the work that was done on the cross. Jesus gave his life to ransom us from the power of sin and death. And because of his sacrifice in this regard, the Father rewarded him by bringing him back to life after he had done the work necessary to purchase us back from the powers of darkness.

So, the resurrection is important to me because it means death is not the end of the story. As Paul wrote, and I paraphrase here, since Jesus was resurrected, we have hope for life beyond the grave as well.

Today, I was aware that many churches were putting their all into celebrating the resurrection. And I think they should. I just think it shouldn’t be a one-day-a-year event. As for me, it was pretty much just another day. Another day of living in gratitude for the resurrection of Jesus. Just like every other day.

Until next time,

steve

As an example of trusting God, we talked about the daily provision of food.  Jesus told us in Matthew 6 that we should not worry about food or clothing, but that we should seek after the kingdom of God, and everything that we need will be provided for us.

In response to that episode, my favorite skeptic/agnostic/atheist (depending on the context in which he labels himself!) Sid Faiwu (not his real name, by the way, and it’s pronounced FAY-woo, as I have taken a long time to learn!) asked a very good question.  I will repost the entire relevant part of his comment here so that you don’t have click over if you really don’t want to…

Taking literally the idea that if one trusts God, then one will be provided with food, clothing, etc. is morally problematic. Every true statement’s contrapositive is also true. The belief you hold to be true is:

If one trusts God, then one will always have enough food.

It’s contrapositive is:

If one doesn’t [sic] not have enough food, then one does not trust God.

It means that if someone starves or is starving, then it’s their own fault for not trusting God. It blames the victim. I’d imagine this is why so few people take this part of the Bible as literal truth.

Secondly, I’d argue that such a belief is simply false. It suggests that Christians should never starve if they truly trust God. I would argue that of all the Christians who have died of starvation over the centuries, at least one of them trusted God in this way. She/He trusted God to provide and he failed to come through.

I completely understand where Sid is coming from on this.  And on the surface, I would agree that it sounds more like blaming the victim.  But I think there are some assumptions made in Sid’s argument that could use a little scrutiny.

First of all, I don’t think there’s any way to argue the actual point regarding contrapositives.  Sid is entirely correct that the contrapositive must be true.  It’s in the evaluation of that contrapositive that I think there are some problems.

Sid says that the original statement by Jesus is morally problematic.  I’m not sure about the “morally” part, because I think that putting the responsibility on someone is not necessarily “blaming the victim”.  In fact, the very phrase “blaming the victim” causes problems because it assumes victim status where none has been established.  In other words, if the words of Jesus here are, in fact, correct, then one who does not heed his words would not be a victim.  They would, in the words found elsewhere in scripture, “reap what they sow”.

So, from that standpoint, I think we need to withhold judgment on whether or not someone is a “victim”.  Let me explain a bit further.  The concept of trusting God (or “faith”) appears many, many times in the New Testament (especially, the four gospels) in conjunction with healing.  Now, I know that we’ve discussed this on this blog in the past, but I think that often we put the cart before the horse. Rather than assuming that Jesus was telling the truth, we try to find other explanations for what we see.

I’ve said it before here: Read the four gospels and make a note of anytime Jesus heals someone from a physical illness.  In those instances, note how often Jesus comments about their faith.  Statements like “your faith has healed you”, or “if you believe, all things are possible” jump out at me.  They are not isolated statements. They are woven consistently through every physical healing with very little exception.

Today, however, when someone does not get healed, and one dares to raise the question of faith, emotional responses often claim that we’re “blaming the victim”.  But if that is true, why did Jesus talk so much about faith in those situations?

From that standpoint, the passage regarding food and clothing is not anything out of the ordinary for Jesus.  In fact, I think it is entirely consistent with the rest of his teaching.  Faith is an integral part of receiving what the Father provides.

Take the story of the prodigal son.  While he was sitting in the pig pen wishing he could eat the scraps he was feeding the pigs, was he a victim?  He was the son of a man who was providing everything he needed — food, clothing, shelter — and yet he had not received what his father was providing because he left home.  He was not a victim.  He received the consequences of his own choices.

Sometimes the situation is not so clear.  One may claim they are trusting God for their provision, but maybe they are hiding their own doubt and worry.  Maybe they are seeking after their own provisions and not really seeking first the kingdom of God, as Jesus instructed.  We can’t judge their hearts, obviously, but I think it doesn’t really make sense to just throw out the words of Jesus in our own lives because of what we think is going on in someone else’s.

Let me turn, now, to the second objection Sid raises.  I have to admit that Sid surprised me with this one, because Sid is usually very concerned about empirical evidence.  Verifiable facts.  And yet here, he throws in a highly hypothetical situation, rolling the dice of history and assuming that somehow he can roll the right number.

Sid says, “…of all the Christians who have died of starvation over the centuries, at least one of them trusted God in this way.”  This pits the statement of Jesus against some “odds” that seem pretty incredible.  I would argue that this is not a logical argument, and therefore is not valid.

It’s not able to be proven or disproven because we can’t go back through history and interview those who have died.  In fact, I would say that there is stronger evidence (eyewitness, even) for the resurrection of Jesus, yet Sid rejects that account, by his own admission.  Yet, in this case, Sid is willing to pit the words of Jesus against unknown, unverifiable, unrecorded “witnesses”.

All I can offer, Sid, is my own testimony.  My own eyewitness account.  I have shared some of these accounts on this blog and on the “Beyond the Box” podcast in the past, so I won’t recount them now.  But if there are any questions, I’ll gladly share them again.  I can’t answer for anyone else, but I have found the words of Jesus — all of them that we have recorded — to be accurate, truthful, and consistent in my life.  When I have trusted my Father, I have never been disappointed.  I have never been rejected by him.  And whatever he has promised has come to pass.  When I have not trusted him, I have found that the consequences of not trusting him have borne out the very promises he made — I have, indeed, reaped what I have sown.

Now, before I close, allow me to say a brief word about “faith”.  Hebrews 11:1 defines faith for us.  I like the way the New International Version words it: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”  Faith is not always based on what we see or what we can touch or what we can prove with our senses.  Faith believes that truth can sometimes supercede evidence.

I know that sounds wacky to some, but I hope you can understand where I’m coming from.  Right now, in fact, we are going through another mini-financial crisis in our family.  A check that was supposed to arrive over a week ago (a substantial part of our monthly income) has not arrived.  We honestly don’t know how we will pay for stuff this week.  Bills that are due, rent that will be due on the 1st, food and gas that are needed this week — we don’t know how we will pay for all of that.

But we trust.  Why? Because of our faith.  Because we know that God has promised.  And in addition to that faith, we have the track record behind us to prove it.  Whenever I have sought the kingdom of God first in my life, all of my needs have been provided for.  Sometimes in really cool “miraculous” ways, sometimes in much more ordinary ways.  But always, always, always, my Father has kept his word.

So, does believing that faith is something we possess and exercise put blame on someone else who doesn’t?  That’s not really the point.  The point is, Jesus said that we can trust the Father for this, and I have found it to be true in my life.  That is the testimony I provide.

Until next time,

steve

The other day on Twitter, someone decided to unfollow me (and actually blocked me) because I challenged them on the need to address concerns with integrity and truthfulness.  They seemed, unfortunately, to be more content to play into the fear and paranoia that comes from misrepresenting the facts about pending legislation.

Here’s what concerns me: Christians should be the ones demonstrating peace, no matter what the circumstances are.  And Christians should be the ones leading the way to finding out truth.  Even our own holy book says, “Come let us reason together”, yet we throw reason out and instead argue on hyperbole and exaggeration.

The newest controversy surrounds a bill in Congress (H.R. 20) right now that is referred to as the “Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act”.  The way this act is described in the emails that are racing around the country, the bill (if it became law) would mandate a test of competency be given to all mothers when they give birth. If the mother is deemed to be “incompetent”, they will not be allowed to take their baby home from the hospital.

Sound insane? I thought so, too.  Yet, according to this post, that’s exactly what the bill is alleged to say.  And my guess is that many are just taking that information and running with it.

But did you know that you can actually read the text of the bills that are being debated in Congress?

OK, I’ve spent some time reading the bill (if you all don’t know, you can go to http://www.opencongress.org and look up any bill, see its status, read its text, etc.  Here’s a link to the bill in question.)  I’ve also examined the information on the dailypaul.com link that I mentioned above (which, by the way, is a website INSPIRED by Ron Paul, but is NOT Ron Paul — if that matters to anyone. I found it a bit misleading).

I have a couple of thoughts, but first a couple of disclaimers.

Dislaimer #1: I’m extremely conservative, and am very opposed to government intrusion.  My political views are probably close to that of the Libertarians. I voted for Ron Paul (as a write-in) in the last presidential election.

Disclaimer #2: My comments are not meant to defend this legislation (which I oppose), but rather to provide some different insight into WHY we should oppose it.

Disclaimer #3: These are just my non-expert opinions, and I’m very open to differing views or different reasoning as mine here.  My desire, however, is to focus on FACTS and not allow ourselves to a) get caught up in hype, or b) simply take someone else’s word for what we think about something.

With those disclaimers in place, allow me to offer my insight here:

1. Having read the entirety of this bill (fortunately, it is not a lengthy one like the stimulus package was!!), I do not see any indication that the claims on dailypaul.com are correct that there is a test given that will cause them not to allow you to take your child home with you if you fail.  The exact quote on dailypaul.com says, “The Mother’s Act, if passed, will mandate that all new mothers be screened by means of a list of subjective questions that will determine if each mother is mentally fit to take their newborn home from the hospital.”  This is simply nowhere to be found in the bill!

2. The focus of the bill is research regarding postpartum depression.  Now, I don’t have any strong feelings one way or the other about PPD (as to its legitimacy, or not) because I simply don’t have enough information, and certainly no experience (!) in this area.  However, in an effort to look at the facts of the bill and not 3rd party statements like dailypaul.com, it must be acknowledged that this bill is geared toward research and resource, not “determin[ing] if each mother is mentally fit to take their newborn home….”

3. Does this mean that new mothers might have to be “educated” at the hospital about PPD?  It does appear to be quite possible.  But does it have anything to do with not allowing mothers to take their children home after birth?  Again, I find absolutely no basis for this claim.

Now, having said that, if you’re still reading, I would like to share why I DO oppose this bill, and give my reasons for concern:

1. Section 101.a.4 concerns me greatly.  It states that the research appropriated by this bill would include “[c]linical research for the development and evaluation of new treatments.”  The reason this bothers me is that there have been uncovered some situations in our nation’s past (and present) where studies are performed on subjects WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT.  So, this area does pose some grave concern.  I would see the possibility here for new mothers to be given medication in the hospital as part of this research about which the new mother neither knows or understands, nor to which she gives consent.

2. Section 330G-1.b.2 has similar concerning language: “Delivering or enhancing inpatient care management services that ensure the well-being of the mother and family and the future development of the infant.”  My concerns raised in #1 above apply here, too.

3. Section 330G-1.b.4.B.ii also states that there should be an effort “ensuring that training programs regarding such education are carried out at the health facility.”  This does sound to me like it would be possible for a mother to have to stay at the health facility during whatever training might take place before being able to return home with their new infant.  That concerns me, as well.

So, having said all that, I think there are several reasons to oppose this legislation, or at least to express concern about it.  However, I am concerned that there seems to be a trend in our conservative circles to misrepresent the actual facts and promote a culture of fear.

For those of you who are believers in Christ, as am I, we have nothing to fear!  There is nothing our government can do that 1) is outside the hands of our Father, or 2) that can do anything to us of eternal consequence.  Let us not fear!

I would encourage each of you to actively pursue information about these topics when you hear these alarming alerts sounded.  But in the process, make sure that you don’t get caught up in the fear and hype surrounding certain topics.  There is a good chance that the alarms being sounded by many are misdirected and misguided.

Is there reason for concern in this bill?  Yes, I believe I have made that clear in my analysis above.  But I do not believe that the fear that is circulating and perpetuated by sites such as dailypaul.com is rooted in reality.  It simply makes us appear “ignorant” to anyone with a different viewpoint because we look like we don’t know what we’re talking about.  Let us fight these battles with integrity, truthfulness, and — above all — love, in the spirit of Christ!

Until next time,

steve

Currently, I’m working on the musical “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat”, a well-known musical that is loosely based on the story of Joseph in Genesis.  We’ve been in production for several weeks now, and frankly, I’m having a blast playing the show.

Involved with our production is a youth choir from the region, many of whom are from Christian homes.  It’s been interesting to see the different perspective of some of the parents.

One person sent an email out to their homeschool group mailing list telling people that, even though their child was involved in the production, they would not be inviting anyone to the performances.  And they pretty much gave the impression that they didn’t think other Christians should see the show, either.  They proceeded to explain how they felt the story was not faithful to the biblical account of Joseph, and how the treatment of the incident with Potiphar’s wife was very risque, etc.

Now, let me say up front that yes, it’s a rather suggestive scene.  But let’s face it — that’s pretty much what happened!  In fact, if I recall correctly, the Bible indicates that Joseph fled the scene less than clothed because he left his outer clothing in the hands of Potiphar’s wife!  In our staging of the show, Joesph gets his shirt ripped off, but that’s it!

Now, contrast that with the discussion I had today at intermission with another mother of a child in the choir.  She, too, is a homeschooler and Christian, and she talked to me about how much she was really enjoying the show.

Without giving specifics, I mentioned the perspective of the other mother.  The response of this mother was, “People aren’t coming to Sunday School when they come to see the show.” In other words, why expect biblical accuracy when attending a play loosely based on a biblical story?  Why should that even be something we expect or demand?

That got me thinking about the two perspectives — and how much I can identify with the second response.  Rather than judge a non-Christian theatre for performing a play loosely based on a Bible story, I’d rather take advantage of a situation which can spark dialogue.  And believe it or not, I have actually been part of several interesting discussions in the green room with cast and crew about this show.

One position says, “Stay away” and the other says, “Let’s put this in perspective.”  My question is, if our tactic is to avoid, how do we possibly shine light into darkness?  How do we possibly show Christ to a world that so desperately needs to see him and experience his love?

Did Jesus avoid the world? I don’t see how we could possibly construe his actions as anything but rubbing shoulders with people who didn’t even know how much they needed him.  And I’ve said it many times before, but his harshest words were for those who thought they were doing God favors!

So, let’s not avoid the world around us.  Let’s engage those around us. Dialogue with them. Listen to them. And by all means, if they’re doing something that doesn’t seem right to you as a believer, be mindful of where they’re at!  Should we expect someone (or an organization) that is not rooted in Christ to be consistent with Christ in its actions?

I work in theatre.  I hear all kinds of language, the roughest of profanity.  I see all sorts of lifestyle choices.  There are many things that I would not choose for myself.  But I can be myself and maybe others will ask me for a reason for the hope that lies within me.

Until next time (whenever that may be!),

steve

Barb, blogging at A Former Leader, wrote a post called “Husband Replacement“. While the major gist of the post is not what I’m trying to blog about here, she wrote a few sentences that I find really pertinent to this question about how we measure spirituality and “leadership”.

I measured [my husband] Marshall for so many years by a measuring stick that was skewed. On one stick was all the things that I thought made you a good Christian – things like being faithful to daily Bible reading, memorizing, journaling, church attendance and fulfilling all the expectations of the leader of whatever church we were in. On the other stick – (God’s stick, btw) – were things like faithfulness, kindness, loving the unlovely, willingness to help me and others, love for his kids, the ability to laugh with those who laugh and weep with those who weep. If I were to have used the right stick he was head and shoulders above any one I knew.

How often do we judge leaders (or just any Christian) based on their faithfulness to the checklist? You know the checklist I’m talking about. All those things we have been taught indicate that we’re a “good Christian”. We honor church attendance, scripture memorization, etc. Yet how often do we look at the relationships people have? How often do we look at how their heart is displayed in their life?

To paraphrase Paul in 1 Corinthians 13, you can memorize scripture, journal diligently, attend anytime the church doors are opened, etc., but if you don’t have love (or, I would add, any of the other fruit of the Spirit), it is completely worthless.

I think this goes along with a post that Alan Knox recently reposted regarding the story we usually call “the good Samaritan”. The one who didn’t have his theology “correct” becomes the hero of the story. He becomes the one Jesus offers as the model to follow. Why? Because he lived it out.

Until next time,
steve

This week, we obviously held a very important election here in the United States. And I noticed something leading up to the election, and it became very obvious as the election results came in Tuesday night.

I have a Facebook account (look me up on there if you’re not already my Facebook friend), and my friends list is very, very diverse. I have some of my blog readers, some “in real life” friends, high school classmates, college classmates, co-workers from the theatre where I have been working these past few months, high school kids whom I accompanied this summer at a music camp — all different types of people. Some very liberal, some very conservative. Some Christian, some not. Some straight, some gay. Some old, some young. Anyway, you get the picture.

Well, if you’re not familiar with Facebook, there’s this little thing on Facebook called “status” where you can say what you’re doing at the moment, what you’re feeling, or whatever you want to put in there.

And so, election night, I was logged into Facebook, and I was following the status changes of all of my Facebook friends. And I noticed a very disturbing trend.

I could have divided my friends into two groups that night. One group was jubilant. “YES, WE DID!!!” read some statuses (stati?). “Change is coming!” read others. “I am sooo happy,” read still more.

And then, there were the evangelical Christians and more conservative types in the other group. “I’m feeling very scared.” “I’m scared, but I know God’s still in control.” “I’m worried about our country.”

Now, would I expect everyone to be happy about the election results? Of course not. Millions voted for John McCain.

But fear? Acting like the world was about to go to hell? The funny thing is, I seem to recall very similar comments from friends and family back in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected as President.

Seriously, Christianity is supposed to be about hope. About life. About victory. About peace. And we’re going to let the results of a Presidential election override all of that??

I just don’t get it. What are you afraid of?

Until next time,
steve

Recently, my good friend Alan Knox wrote a very creative post about Starbucks that I would like to recommend. It’s called “A Cup o’ Joe or a Cup with Joe“. I highly suggest that you all read it. Enjoy the comment thread after it, too.

I don’t want to give too much away, but just know that you should read it, even if you don’t drink coffee (you’ll understand, hopefully). Be forewarned, though: It might be a little convicting.

Until next time,

steve

In times past, I have noticed that there are two almost polar opposite views at play in our western version of Christianity. One is the bumper sticker theology that says:

I’m just a sinner saved by grace

or perhaps this one:

Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.

The opposing viewpoint is one that says that victory over sin in this life is not only possible, but should likely be the outlook of every Christian.

Some of the controversy seems to come from Paul’s statements in Romans 7. In this well-known chapter, Paul describes a struggle between what he wants to do and what he doesn’t want to do. In this chapter, he seems to indicate that the “doesn’t want to do” frequently wins out. Many see this as the believer’s struggle with sin, and then draw the conclusion that Paul was saying that he was not victorious over sin. It would stand to reason, then, that if Paul was incapable of living a life of victory over sin, how could we hope to do any better?

My problems with this are on several levels, however. Perhaps the first and most obvious problem that I have with this passage (obvious to me, at least!) is the context of Romans 7. Without sounding pedantic here, Romans 7 falls between Romans 6 and Romans 8. And both 6 and 8 talk about victory over sin.

For instance, Romans 6:2 says, “How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” And after describing our identification with the death of Christ, Paul says in Romans 6:7, “he who has died is freed from sin.” And again in verse 11, “Consider yourselves to be dead to sin.” Numerous similar phrases appear throughout chapter 6.

Romans 8 is likewise full of positive statements regarding victory over sin. Verse 4 says that we “do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

So I have a lot of difficulty understanding how Romans 7 could be Paul’s description of his ongoing experience in his life. I have heard that theory justified (no pun intended!) in many different ways, including the idea of an “already/not yet” concept in Paul’s writing. And while it is true that Paul talks about all creation “groaning” while waiting for the ultimate new creation, he doesn’t speak of human beings in that way. Rather he says, literally, “In Christ = new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

[By way of explanation, there is no verb "is" in 2 Corinthians 5:17. Paul doesn't say, "if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation" or "if anyone is in Christ, he will be a new creation". Rather, he literally just says, "If anyone is in Christ -- new creation. Old things passed away. All things new." Greek scholars correct me if I'm wrong here, but my understanding of Greek is that two things placed together in this manner without a joining verb are being shown to be equated with each other. So, if we are in Christ, there is no future "new creation" that we need to wait for.]

But an even more interesting passage with this regard is Hebrews 10. I encourage you to read the entire chapter linked there, but I’d like to quote a portion of it here as it relates to the point I’m making:

For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.

Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?

But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.

…[W]e have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;

but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,

…For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,

…let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

…For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins….

I’ve quoted large chunks of this passage because I want to give a sense of the flow of the passage. Notice the comparison of the sacrifice of Jesus with the sacrifices under the previous Law. In fact, most of the book of Hebrews is built around this type of comparison.

Under the Law, there was a continued “consciousness” of sin. There was a continued relationship to sin. Why? Because the sacrifices under that law were not adequate to completely remove that relationship.

However, under the sacrifice of Jesus, we have been “made perfect”. By way of the contrast being drawn, it could be phrased that we no longer have a “consciousness of sin”.

Now, what does (or should) that mean? I’m open to debate on this issue, but I think that it might be radically different from a lot of what I hear taught.

Should sin be an issue for us? I don’t think so. Should we be continuing in sin if we are in Christ? I don’t think so.

But here’s the important thing to keep in mind: I’m not proposing that this is a “try harder” admonition. In fact, I would run completely in the opposite direction. What I am suggesting is an application by faith of what has already been done for us.

The writer of Hebrews is not suggesting an “already/not yet” tension here. In the same way that Paul says to “consider yourselves dead to sin”, I think we are called and instructed to live a life that focuses on the indwelling Christ who has already washed us clean. That’s why the writer of Hebrews can talk about our ability to approach our Father with confidence, knowing that we are clean.

If we have come to Christ and received the gift of eternal life that he has provided, we no longer have a consciousness of sin (Hebrews 10). We no longer need to let sin have any place in our lives (since we are to consider ourselves dead to it) (Romans 6-8). Having confessed our sins, we are cleansed from all unrighteousness (1 John 1).

I think in some ways, we have replaced the Old Covenant sacrifices, not with the “once-for-all” sacrifice of Jesus, but with our own confessions and prayers. Instead of walking confidently in our position in Christ with no consciousness of sins, we feel that we somehow have to get cleaned up every time we want to approach the Father. But He tells us that we are already clean! By not accepting that, we are yielding to a “consciousness of sin” that should no longer exist.

The last verse I quoted above from Hebrews 10 says it pretty bluntly.  If we go on sinning willfully, there is no sacrifice for sin.  The sacrifice of Jesus has already removed our sin.  And we need not be drawn into a guilty conscience over something that has already been forgiven.  (The Romans 6:1 disclaimer applies here, lest anyone mistake my thoughts for advocating license to sin freely!)

I close with this admonition and reminder from Paul in Colossians 3:

Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

Sin in the life of a believer? Forget about it!

Until next time,

steve

This post started as a response on a post over at The Pursuit, but I decided to just write it here instead. In one of Lew’s “Question of the Week” posts, he asked:

Why do the things that cause us to separate ourselves by denomination have little to do with what God’s Word tells us to separate ourselves from?

Recently, in response to that, a commenter wrote:

…the union of people who have conflicting ideas is really no unity at all.

I think this is 1) a red herring, and 2) a false dichotomy, and 3) an excuse for the utter lack of attempts at unity in the body of Christ.

There can be a lot of “conflicting ideas” in a unified group. The unity is not always a simple function of unity in thought (or better yet, a unity in knowledge), but rather a unity in identification.

I find my identity in Christ. Who I am is found in Christ. Anyone else who finds their identity in Christ is my brother, and I should be able to be unified with them without any problem.

What if we disagree on methods of evangelism? So what?

What if we disagree on the use of certain spiritual gifts? So what?

What if we disagree on exactly how God created the heavens and the earth? So what?

What if we disagree on exactly what/when the millenial kingdom of Christ is? So what?

What if we disagree on exactly how God has “chosen” us? So what??

That need not divide us. Unless we twist any of those things, or a million other “issues” like them, into issues of true fellowship, they are not reasons for division. And if those things divide us, we should ask ourselves: From what do we get our identity?

For example, take a look at some of the leaders of large denominations who say that they can’t “cooperate” in the work of the Gospel with those who have not been baptized by someone in their denomination. Are they really seeking unity? In my opinion, no. They are seeking to defend their particular belief system as the only true and correct belief system.

That is not of Christ. It never has been, and never will be. And it is not those outside of that denomination who are the heretics. It is the one causing division who is the heretic.

Let’s quit coming up with excuses for our division and start really accepting and loving those who confess Christ, and seeking unity with them.

Conflicting ideas? Sure. Ability to fellowship and work together despite those differences? Absolutely — because it is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one Spirit that unites us.

Until next time,

steve

Much of what I would like to say has been said in one form or another in the comments that were posted previously. This has the net effect of letting me know ahead of time that my thoughts won’t be overly controversial to everyone in the discussion! But seriously, it is refreshing to see such thought being given to this topic. I likely will not address everything that was written in the comments, but they are there for you to read for yourself. Instead, I want to share my thoughts, some of which will overlap the thoughts of others.

It is easy, I think, for us to agree that whatever Jesus meant when he prayed for our unity, we’re not fulfilling it. I don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone who says that the body of Christ is experiencing unity at the level that Jesus prayed for. Part of this is because we don’t even agree on what the unity is supposed to look like!

Some options of interpretation that I have come across in my time of examining this passage include:

• Unity = Unanimity — Unity can only come when we fully agree on everything that is believed, practiced, taught, etc.
• Unity = Consensus — Unity means that we “agree to disagree”
• Unity = Anything Goes — Unity means that every person’s belief is valid, and we should never “debate” or try to convince others of our viewpoints
• Unity = Eschatological Perfection — The unity that Jesus prayed for is only possible, and will only exist, when Jesus returns and we are made perfect.

With that in mind, I posed the question, “What is the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17 and is it primarily (or even solely) eschatological in nature?”

Let me first of all give my thoughts on the eschatology aspect of the question. I think determining the eschatological import (if any) helps us determine what the unity actually is. It also impacts what we believe to be our responsibility toward the unity in question.

In other words, if the unity is primarily (or solely) eschatological, we can easily assume that it is not attainable in this lifetime, and we will generally feel like it’s not even worth trying. If, however, the unity is a present possibility and reality, we will understand our own response to the prayer of Jesus.

As some have already commented, I do not believe that the unity for which Jesus prayed is eschatological. Eschatological unity is almost a given. Why would Jesus take the time to pray for what is essentially a guaranteed part of the future kingdom?

But more importantly, the words of Jesus in John 17 give us ample evidence that eschatology is not in view during this prayer. Verse 21 tells us specifically that the prayer of Jesus for unity is for this purpose: “…so that the world may believe that You sent Me.”

Verse 23 expands on this by saying that the purpose of the unity is “…so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.”

In my opinion, these two statements of purpose that Jesus gave for his prayer for unity remove any eschatological implication from the prayer. The purpose of the unity is to demonstrate to the world that God sent Jesus and that God loves us.

If this is correct (and obviously, I believe it is), then this greatly impacts our understanding of what that unity is and whether or not we should actively be pursuing it. Since it is not a future unity (any eschatological implications must come from outside the text), there must be a present unity for which Jesus prayed.

Within this prayer, Jesus gives some indication as to what the unity should be. Namely, it should be a mirror of the unity that Jesus and the Father share. He compares the unity of us with his unity with the Father in verse 21:

…they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us….

Would we say that the unity of Jesus and the Father is manifest in “you go your way and I’ll go mine and we won’t bother each other”? Yet this is frequently what ends up happening among Christians.

You believe in infant baptism? Then I can’t fellowship with you. You believe in speaking in tongues? You’ll have to have church across town. You believe that the Genesis account of creation is metaphorical? I have nothing in common with you.

This cannot be what Jesus prayed for.

And with that, I will have to hold off on the rest of my thoughts because I am out of time. Comments are open, and I will return with a further post at some point.

Until next time,

steve