Abstinence of Evidence

"Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions." (Jesus in Matthew 7:20, NLT)

"So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples.” (Jesus in John 13:34-35, NLT, emphasis obviously mine)

Believe it or not, unassailable doctrine, large churches, observance of strict moral codes, etc., are not the best indicators that we're followers of Jesus, although they may sometimes come along for the ride. But it doesn't get much simpler than this: our love for one another will prove to the world that we are Jesus' disciples.

Is it possible that followers of Christ tend to live under the impression -- and teach and imply -- that our abstinence from such-and-such "evil" will prove to the world that we're indeed Jesus' disciples? Certainly there are codes of conduct that are taught to the believer in Scripture, and often those things begin with "do not." I'm not saying or implying otherwise.

The problem, though, may be that we're so concerned with the "do not" parts that we tend to forget the "do" parts. Consider the fact that Jesus did not make any of these statements:

• "If you do not associate with sinners, you will prove to the world that you are my disciples."
• "If you do not use foul speech, this will prove to the world that you are my disciples."
• "Your abstinence from alcohol will prove to the world that you are my disciples."
• "If you do not support businesses that act in a way that is contrary to Scriptural principles, the world will know that you are my disciples."
• "If you do not gossip, it will be obvious to the world that you are my disciples."

Some of those things are fine (unless they're accompanied by legalism, at which point they're tainted), but according to Jesus, none are the most solid evidence that we are His disciples. In fact, our reliance on "do not" rules can have a tremendous negative effect. (Dave Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons' eye-opening 2007 book, unChristian, is a great place to start in learning about this, and I highly recommend it.)

One of my favorite quotes about the Church is one made by a man known as Julian the Apostate, emperor of Rome from 361-363. He wrote in a letter to Arsacius, the high priest in Galatia, "These impious Galileans [Christians] not only feed their own poor, but ours also; welcoming them into their agapae, they attract them, as children are attracted, with cakes." It wasn't that this early group of believers stood up for their religious rights, abstained from certain foods and drinks, or didn't associate with pagans. It was direct outward evidence of their love for other people (which blossomed out of their love for Jesus) that was evidence that they were followers of The Way.

For the sake of Jesus Christ, let us become a generation of believers that is known for what it does rather than what it does not do.

(This post was originally made quite some time ago; you've just read a re-post. But that's okay. It was free!)

Read more »

Good Deeds, Righteousness, or Alms?

A few days ago I talked about the differences in a few English Bible translations. Not the standard kind of "thee" versus "you" differences, and not the bigger, deep theological sorts of differences. Something in between, really. This post will follow up where I left off and is a little longer than usual.

In Matthew 6:1, Jesus says that we shouldn't be making a showy spectacle of ourselves as we do good stuff. We should not help people so that we'll get attention and credit for doing something good. (At the same time, we should be an example to people around us; our motivation is the key.)

In that verse the New Living Translation quotes Jesus as saying, "Don't do your good deeds publicly, to be admired by others..." The phrase "good deeds" is also used in Matthew 5:16: "Let your good deeds shine out for all to see..."

I thought it odd that Jesus would speak of exactly the same acts twice within five minutes of each other, once saying to do them publicly and next saying to do them privately, so I looked at the English Standard Version for a different perspective. Sure enough, while in 5:16 the ESV says "let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works," it says in 6:1 "beware of practicing your righteousness before other people..." Must be a different Greek word(s) in the two verses, I reasoned. This proved to be correct.

In my Blue Letter Bible app for iPhone (which I tend to use more than YouVersion because it has a Greek interlinear feature), looking at the Greek text, "good works" (καλός ἔργον - kalos ergon) mentioned in 5:16 are specific works. "Kalos" means beautiful or good, and "ergon" means to work, toil, or labor. "Righteousness" (δικαιοσύνη - dikaiosunē) in 6:1 focuses more along the lines of a person's good character (equity of character or action), meaning to me that the latter was saying, "Don't try to get people to think that you're all pious and stuff. Be humble."

Good enough to give clarity the two passages. And then I looked at the King James Version.

"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them..." Zoiks! That's different. I saw no way of rendering "dikaiosunē" to mean alms or money, so I checked another interlinear Bible at Scripture4All.org. Imagine my surprise when I noted that Matthew 6:1 used the Greek word "ἐλεημοσύνη" -- eleēmosunē. This means "compassionateness" (is that even a word?) or alms, as exercised toward the poor. This made Jesus' words in 6:1 have a much more focused point. He was literally talking about giving to the poor; a specific kind of work that we shouldn't trumpet so people will see us being all philanthropic and what-not.

But why the differences in the Greek text? It's easy to understand the variances in English translations, but could be a big deal if someone's using a different Greek manuscript.

Ever notice the footnotes in your Bible that say things like, "Some manuscripts add Bless those who curse you. Do good to those who hate you."? I'll bet you have. Have you seen the footnote at Mark 16:8? "The most reliable early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at verse 8. The majority of manuscripts include the 'longer ending' immediately after verse 8."

Here's the tip of the iceberg: the King James Version was translated from a manuscript called Textus Receptus, meaning "the received text." Almost all modern translations rely primarily on other manuscripts, notably Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (interestingly, Sinaiticus was discovered in St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai in 1844, supposedly in a wastebasket about to be burned to help heat the monestary). The latter two, dating to about the 4th century A.D., are older than the most recent copies of Textus Receptus by a few hundred years, so one line of reasoning says these must, then, be more accurate manuscripts. But not so fast! You'll find that many phrases from Textus Receptus that are omitted in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are quoted by sources within 50 years of Jesus' resurrection.

Here we have the source of a debate that has remained strong (heck, it's raged) for several hundred years now, though it is much less visible than many other debates in the Church.

My point is not to fan the flames of that debate. I'm not saying that the KJV, translated in 1611, is superior to modern translations. I'm not even arguing for one ancient manuscript over another. What I'm saying is that we live in a fantastically wonderful time in history. Do you realize the breadth of ancient study materials available to the average person? How on earth could we squander these things? If we truly believe that we have in our possession a divine book that the Creator of the universe wrote/breathed so that we can know Him and know more about Him, why in the universe do we leave it sitting on the table, on a shelf, in a car floorboard, or in a drawer?

Why don't we take advantage of the amazing resources at our fingertips? Here are just a handful of online tools that you need to be taking advantage of:

The Blue Letter Bible -- Great site. The mobile app is only for iPad, iPod, and iPhone.

E-Sword -- A program rather than an online tool, and an absolute must-download. Not available in a mobile version.

BibleGateway.com -- What Chick-Fil-A is to southern Baptist churches, BibleGateway is to Christian internet users.

Online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament -- Awesome but not optimized for mobile devices. Search results are in PDF files.

Online Interlinear Greek New Testament -- Again, awesome but not optimized for mobile devices. Search results are in PDF files.

BibleStudyTools.com -- This site comes highly recommended by many friends, but I haven't gotten too much mileage out of it. Looks good but a little cluttered.

Interlinear Bible -- Guess what this is.

Here are some links that will help you research the differences between the various ancient manuscript sources for the Bible. You'll find that the debate can be quite heated. Most who embrace the KJV-only view have no room to tolerate anyone who disagrees. In their defense, this is the Word of God that we are discussing; not Beowulf.

GotQuestions.org -- What are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus?

Textus Receptus

Codex Sinaiticus

Codex Vaticanus

NLT Frequently Asked Questions

KJV Today

Codex Sinaiticus: It Is Old But Is It The Best?

Read more »

Good Deeds and Contradictions

When reading or studying the Bible there is danger in grabbing a verse here and a verse there to support a desired conclusion. There's also danger in getting one's primary (or only) dose of Scripture and teaching via topical sermons delivered by an eloquent speaker (or worse, a bad one). When we're challenged or confronted with an argument about contradiction in Scripture, we can be taken completely off-guard.

One of the worst responses in this kind of situation is simply to say, "I just take the Bible on faith," and dismiss the challenge as being made by an ignorant Christian-hater. The fact is, most of the time it's not the Bible we're taking on faith. Often it's the teaching of someone who pieced together some verses to bolster a themed speech. One of the most familiar examples of this is Jesus' statement, "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." Jesus was not talking about Church services. He was addressing confrontation of sin among believers.

This morning my Scripture reading included Matthew 5 and 6. In those chapters there are two quotes spoken by Jesus in a single sitting -- the Sermon on the Mount. They're interesting when considered together (emphases mine):

"No one lights a lamp and then puts it under a basket. Instead, a lamp is placed on a stand, where it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your good deeds shine out for all to see, so that everyone will praise your heavenly Father." (Matthew 5:15-16, NLT)

“Watch out! Don’t do your good deeds publicly, to be admired by others, for you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven. When you give to someone in need, don’t do as the hypocrites do—blowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I tell you the truth, they have received all the reward they will ever get. But when you give to someone in need, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you." (Matthew 6:1-4, NLT)

Following up on these passages, I read what I consider to be some rather poor commentaries trying to justify what seems to be a set of contradictory statements. One, for instance, took a few other verses and attempted to say that Jesus was not talking about works in 5:15-16 (you know, where He says "works"), but about His words. Voilà! No contradiction! I would be embarrassed to deliver that as a rebuttal to someone claiming the passages are contradictory.

There are several ways to explain the seeming contradiction, and some are fairly solid.

One way is to note that Jesus added the critical phrase "to be admired by others" in Matthew 6:1. This shows that our motivation is at least as important as the resulting deeds, if not more important.

Another explanation comes by looking at the Greek text and noting that in Matthew 5:16 Jesus said "good deeds" (καλὰ ἔργα) but in 6:1 He actually said "righteousness" (δικαιοσύνην). (The NLT unfortunately renders both as "good deeds," so this line of thinking is less obvious.) At this point we could draw a distinction between "good deeds" as something good to seen by others and "righteousness" as something we shouldn't try to show off in an arrogant and pious way.

But most wouldn't get as far as that last explanation, because Greek and Hebrew are thought of as the sole domain of scholars, teachers, and pastors, but not the ordinary layperson. However, given the absolutely amazing tools at our disposal in the modern world we can peer back into the original languages and study some specifics. A word of warning, though: it is very important to realize that, among other things, the average person is not a cultural expert on the ancient middle east, and therefore some points will simply not be clear without drawing on the knowledge and wisdom of others who have studied for years. However, we can find answers to many questions this way more often than not.

Considering that, going a little further into Matthew 5:15-16 and 6:1-4, I noted that the King James Version doesn't use "good deeds" or "righteousness" in 6:1. Rather, the KJV says "do not your alms before men," making this verse a statement about giving money. Now, that is decidedly different from -- and more specific than -- the other readings. It also happens to wrap up nicely with Jesus talking about giving to the poor in 6:4.

If you've read this far, I applaud you. I honestly might be bored by now if I were you. Are you interested in knowing the reason for the difference between the reading in the KJV and the NLT (and ESV, NASB, and most other translations)? If not, I shall move on to another topic next time.

Read more »

When Necessary, Use Money

I think I'd better clarify some things about yesterday's post, "Would Jesus Contribute?" It may sound like I'm opining that Christians should be giving more money to organizations or efforts that I consider to be Christ-honoring and much less to "evil" things like presidential campaigns.

That's not what I meant to convey (but if it's a conviction of yours you should act on it). I don't believe that donating funds to a campaign is inherently bad. I don't think I'm better than you if you've never given a dime to the Downtown Rescue Mission, and I don't even think you're a terrible Christian if that's the case. I intended to illustrate that our priorities as a nation just might be out of whack, and the direction our money flows could be a key indicator of that.

Jesus and the apostles gave to poor people from a pool of money they collected, and Judas was their treasurer (see John 12:5-6 and 13:29). So while there may be a Biblical basis for stating that Jesus likely would've been more likely to give money to a rescue mission rather than a political coup effort (I can't think of a better comparison at the moment; the political landscape of the middle east was... well, a bit different from that of modern America), my guess is that Jesus would've actually been at the rescue mission rather than simply donating money to it.

This also touches on one of the serious issues I have with modern church culture. The typical church atmosphere today is such that attendees are conditioned to put money into an offering plate and consider this to be a pretty decent way to spread the Gospel (you know, it will grow the size of the church so more people will come, hear the preacher preach, and get saved -- which is not a Biblical concept). Whether intended or not, this method of helping, if it is the primary focus, keeps the average church-attender from actually meeting and connecting to needy people and it tells him that money is his best gift or good deed. And it keeps the business end of the church above water so that the process can be repeated over and over.

While I'm not condemning all churches that see fit to sink their funds into a state-of-the-art building, frankly, it makes me sick to learn of a church raising, say, $5 million and pouring it into a new facility when they've never lifted a collective finger to help to the needy in their own community or the organization a few miles down the road that's furnishing meals, clothes, and blankets to those who are going without. This is utterly appalling.

Again, my intent yesterday was not to say that Christians should be giving more money to such-and-such or less money to this-and-the-other. To modify a saying that's most frequently attributed to Francis of Assisi -- "Preach the Gospel at all times; when necessary use words" -- I believe that our "contribution" should be a lifestyle of sacrifice for others, for the sake and in the name of Jesus Christ. When necessary, use money.

Read more »

Would Jesus Contribute?

I read an article at Yahoo! News today. In it President Obama was painted as being concerned that his campaign for re-election might be outspent by Mitt Romney's. The president noted, "And if things continue as they have so far, I'll be the first sitting president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign." That would certainly be embarrassing.

The article also notes, "[President Obama's] campaign, the Democratic National Committee and their joint accounts reported more than $173 million cash on hand at the end of May, $61 million more than rival Mitt Romney and Republicans." At the end of May. A full month ago. At that time, according to the article, Obama's campaign claimed $173 million and Romney's apparently $112 million. That's $285 million that people and organizations have donated to have their favorite candidate elected or re-elected. That doesn't include third-party candidates' coffers.

Just for grins, I had a look at the website of Huntsville's Downtown Rescue Mission and saw this quote: "To feed everyone at the Downtown Rescue Mission for one year: approximately $385,000. 'He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the Lord, and He will repay him for his good deed.' - Proverbs 19:17."

Since I am an absolute math wizard, I popped up my calculator and quickly determined that presidential campaign funds raised so far could pay for about 740 years' worth of meals at our local Rescue Mission.

But who cares? We certainly have more pressing concerns than this.

For more laughs, I went to The Water Project's website to see how their donations were coming along. In Africa or India, each shallow well costs the group about $6,500 to dig and maintain. For a deep, well-maintained one it's more like $30,000. That's a lot of money whenever a missionary comes to meet with your church and asks for donations, isn't it?! And they usually talk way too long. According to Water Is Life, one child dies every 15 seconds due to a lack of water.

But mercifully, that doesn't impact us in America and has little bearing on the election process, if any.

By the way, my calculator told me that about 9,500 wells -- the expensive ones -- could be dug with the money that both major parties had raised for their candidates by the end of May.

You can rationalize all you like, and you can offer explanations as to why our priorities are the way they are. Tell me that in order to make good things happen we have to have the right man in office. Tell me that the government isn't supposed to cure all social ills. Agreed. Isn't the Church supposed to be the example in that arena? 

Something here is very, very screwed up.

"One nation under God." Remember how the religious people got horribly and vocally bent out of shape when a key politician said that America wasn't a Christian nation? You can honestly look at the numbers above and tell me that we are?

Out of the things I talked about above, to which would Jesus contribute? And would He contribute something other than money?

Read more »

Where's Jesus?

I'm surprised and feel a little silly that I never caught the connection between these passages before. Notice the phrases I've emphasized.

Anyone who wants to be my disciple must follow me, because my servants must be where I am. And the Father will honor anyone who serves me.
John 12:26, NLT

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’

“Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

“And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’
Matthew 25:34-40, NLT

If we want to be disciples and servants of Jesus, we have to be where He is. Sometimes that "place" is not a mysterious destination we have to agonize about, asking God if this or that is what He'd have us to do. Often it's right in front of us.

In a very straightforward manner, Jesus told us just a few of the places we can find Him. Are we there?

You can stop reading here if you'd like, and jump right to criticizing me for espousing some kind of exclusively social gospel. However, this was written to expound on one small aspect of living as a disciple of Jesus Christ, not to say it encompasses everything. Read further for bonus content! These thoughts and clarifications came out of a discussion of the topic via e-mail with a friend.

My friend asked, "So we find Jesus where believers are, right? In these passages then, is Jesus talking about helping only less fortunate Christians? How do you find Jesus among non-believers?" My response was something like this (with a few edits for clarity):

"We find Jesus where believers are..." That's obviously a true statement, but keeping Scripture in mind (like the passage above, Matthew 25, for instance), "Jesus is not among non-believers" may not necessarily be a true statement. When Jesus is talking in the Matthew 25 passages, the believers He was talking about were the ones He was talking to. He never mentioned whether the hungry, poor, etc., were believers. That apparently didn't matter. That is, we're never told in Scripture to screen someone to determine if they're worthy of our help -- if they're a believer, etc. We're never told the spiritual status of the guy in the ditch that the Good Samaritan helped, for example. He was just "a man."

And then there's a different perspective making a similar point: the Church is the body of Christ; He is the head. ("We find Jesus among believers.") However, Jesus put Himself among non-believers as a regular habit when He was physically on earth. Eating with tax-collecting scum, defending a sexually promicuous woman who was not a believer, doing things that got Him labeled by the religious elite as a drunkard and a glutton. ("We find Jesus among non-believers.") Therefore, one way we find Jesus among non-believers is for us (believers) to be where non-believers are.

Again, Jesus told us and showed us just a few of the places we can find Him. Are we there?

Read more »

Does Theology Trump Love?

Jesus' theology was perfect. The rest of us, as smart or as Spirit-filled as some may be, have an imperfect, even muddled understanding of it. While there's no getting around the fact that if objective truth does exist (and I believe it does), some people are closer to it than others. However, I hope that no follower of Christ is convinced that he has such a stranglehold on "proper theology" that it rivals that of Jesus.

So why have we elevated theological understanding to a place of supreme importance in the Church, displacing priorities that Jesus obviously held to be critical? I would argue that we have done so in a bold, unashamed manner.

When was the last time you heard of a person or family leaving a church fellowship because that church body didn't serve the needy people in the community? I'm not sure I've ever heard of anything like that. How long has it been since you found out about a family leaving their church because the pastor seemed to be leaning toward Calvinism? Yesterday? Last month? How often does a believer decide to seek out a new church home because their current one doesn't give much money to the poor or to sister churches in need? How often do they begin that journey because they feel like the deacons are trying to run the church? because the music is too "rock 'n roll"? because the pastor uses too many sermon illustrations and not enough Scripture?

In the Word we see by Jesus' actions and words that He was far more concerned about a person's love for the Lord and love for other people than He was about their theology. It seems quite odd to me, then, that most who claim to follow Him today have positioned their spiritual concerns in the exact opposite way.

Solid theology can and should coexist with love and justice (see my comments on Biblical justice when you have time), but it does not trump them and certainly doesn't replace them. Let's stop acting as though it does.

No, O people, the Lord has told you what is good,
and this is what he requires of you:
to do what is right, to love mercy,
and to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8 (NLT)

Jesus replied, “The most important commandment is this: ‘Listen, O Israel! The Lord our God is the one and only Lord. And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:29-31 (NLT)

Read more »

Jesus Heals a Guy Like Us

In 1888 there was an archaeological dig that was the result of repairs that had begun on St. Anne’s Church building. A 4th-century building was found first, with paintings on the walls depicting an angel stirring the water of a pool. Below that building the site of a pool was unearthed.

In 1888 excavations near St. Anne's Church… revealed the remains of an ancient church building. Beneath this lay a crypt, with its north wall divided into five compartments in imitation of arches; on this wall there could also be distinguished traces of an old fresco representing the angel troubling the water. Clearly those who built this structure believed that it marked the site of the pool of Bethesda. And subsequent excavations below the crypt showed that they were right; a flight of steps was uncovered leading down to a pool with five shallow porticoes on its north side, directly underneath the five imitation arches on the north wall of the crypt. There are few sites in Jerusalem, mentioned in the Gospels, which can be identified so confidently.
(from "The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?" by
 F. F. Bruce, emphasis mine)

This pool is the setting of the action that occurs in John 5:1-17, which our house church group is planning to read and study today. This post covers the first bit of what we'll be looking at.

Verses 1 through 17 give the account of Jesus arriving at the Pool of Bethesda on a Sabbath day. He healed a man who'd been an invalid for 38 years, telling the man to pick up his mat and walk. That was a no-no; carrying a mat from one place to another on the Sabbath was a violation of oral tradition which was eventually written down in a document called the Mishnah. There were 39 kinds of labor prohibited on the Sabbath according to the Mishnah.

You need to read the whole story before going on. In case you didn't click on it two paragraphs ago, here's another link to it.

Most modern translations of the Bible don't contain John 5:4 because it’s not found in the oldest Greek manuscripts. The text that's missing is part of verse 3 and all of verse 4: “Crowds of sick people—blind, lame, or paralyzed—lay on the porches waiting for a certain movement of the water, for an angel of the Lord came from time to time and stirred up the water. And the first person to step in after the water was stirred was healed of whatever disease he had.” (NLT)

Whatever the case, people seem to have been healed at the pool. It may have happened once a year, at the time of this Jewish festival (which is not named in this chapter but was probably Passover). The man may have been sitting in the little porch for 38 years. Or he may have been taken there this time every year (which is unlikely, because we read that he had no one to help get him into the pool). He was very used to waiting, and very used to failure.

We’re not told why Jesus picked this man out of everyone sitting there, but the way the story unfolds, it’s clear that Jesus chose to heal only him, not any of the countless others hanging around. And there seems to have been nothing remarkable about the guy; certainly he wasn't like the government official whose son had been healed by Jesus in the previous chapter. The man at the pool was at the bottom of the societal ladder. On top of that, he apparently didn’t even know who Jesus was, as evidenced by his response to the religious leaders after he was healed.

Jesus asked him, “Do you want to be healed?” and instead of saying, “Yes!” the man described what had become the story of his life. “I can’t.” Then he explained why he couldn’t be healed: “Sir, when the water is stirred, I don't have anybody to put me in the pool. By the time I get there, somebody else is already in.”

This is like us in at least a couple of ways:

1. Most of the time we have a pre-determined idea of how God will meet our need or answer our prayer. And we think it’s very sensible – and the only possible way God could respond. And frankly, we may be used to Him not answering in the way we’ve decided He should. We put God in our box, just like this man put God in his box. We have faith in God, but it’s very limited by what we expect to see. When we limit God like that, it serves to diminish our respect for Him and our faith in Him. What we’re left with is a faith that is there, but is weak and powerless. Or...


2. We have repeatedly done our best to get rid of some sin or bad behavior in our lives, but in spite of our best efforts, we know that tomorrow we’re doomed to fail again, just like we have every single time. And we complain, or we despair. “I’ve tried, but God hasn’t done anything.” This has the same result: it limits God in our minds and diminishes our belief and our faith in Him. We wind up with faith that is still there, but again, it's weak and powerless.

Jesus’ response to the man was, “Get up, pick up your cot, and walk away.” At first glance, Jesus’ healing of the invalid didn’t seem to depend on the man’s belief or faith, but we should remember that the man had strong enough faith to remain by the pool, knowing that God could heal him. He was beaten down by circumstance, he’d grown to think God wouldn’t heal him, and “knew” that there was only one possible way God could do it. But his faith remained. This, too, is also like many of us.

I believe Jesus wanted to use this man, on this day, in this setting, to bring attention and honor fame to Himself. That’s his prerogative – He is God and if He chooses to work this way, He may. That may be why He chose this man whose faith was so weak; so His strength could be seen in spite of a man’s weakness.

Our focus should be to keep our eyes peeled for Jesus in the midst of all the clutter around us, not to keep our attention on the problem, or on the way that we think God should resolve it, but to “keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, on Whom our faith depends from beginning to end,” even if we have to wait 38 years.

Read more »

What To Do With Those Stinking Hypocrites

Some people are worth our help, our grace, and our forgiveness. But some are worthless. Right?

No? I fear that evidence in our lives proves that many of us hold to this philosophy.

Over the past couple of years I've had the opportunity to share some of my past -- some things of which I'm not at all proud -- with a few brothers in Christ. Not at some group confessional, but in one-on-one situations when I've felt that some of my screw-ups (rather, their solutions) would help those friends in situations they've been going through.

The reason they're able to listen to those stories and not write me off as a completely dispicable person is that they know I'm not still that guy. I've had to repent of some big things, and now my goal, my desire, is to continually change to be conformed to the image of Jesus. Some of you, probably most of you, would give me that same grace given current conditions. You may know me personally or have read enough here to know that I don't want to be the old Dean anymore, and that God has done some serious things in my life. He's made minor and massive "adjustments" that were painful to me, seemed illogical, and weren't even changes I wanted for myself.

But what if you knew me when I was going through those situations? What if you knew that I called myself a Christian yet I did things that completely belied that description; things you'd probably call "evil" without a second thought? (No, I've not killed anyone or done anything nearly so heinous as that.)

Read more »

How Would You Describe Me?

A few days ago a friend at work presented me with an idea that might possibly tell me everything I need to know about myself -- or maybe just an most important thing I need to know about myself -- from a perspective that's outside of my own.

He asked the following simple question of an acquaintance at work and received an answer that he didn't want to hear. He asked, "How would you describe me?" The response was, essentially, that he's a die-hard football fan. That would bring smiles to many die-hard football fans, but what he wanted to be told was something that had to do with Jesus Christ in him. The answer sparked a fairly dramatic change in his day-to-day activities.

What if you asked your coworker, "How you you describe me?" Would the answer have "Jesus" anywhere in it?

Read more »

A Crash Course In Hermeneutics - Explicit Content!

Today we move on to Great Rule-of-Thumb number three. This one's a bit more of a hard-and-fast rule than the others. It's led to some of the most well-known differences of opinion in Christian theological circles, like the question of whether a person can come to Christ of his own will or if he must be specifically drawn by the Holy Spirit, the dispute over eternal security of the believer, etc. (Most of the time I believe this happens because people grab onto what someone has taught them rather than learning from their own careful study of Scripture.)

With that in mind, I'll be using a much less-controversial illustration of the use of this "rule" than did R. C. Sproul in his book Knowing Scripture, from which these 11 principles were taken.

Rule #3 - Interpret the implicit by the explicit

Merriam-Webster.com defines implicit this way: "capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed." Explicit is defined like this: "fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent."

Therefore implicit = not directly stated in Scripture but strongly (or mildly) suggested. Explicit = specifically and clearly stated in Scripture. This rule says that when the Bible seems to imply something that goes against something else that is clearly stated, we go with what Scripture clearly states.

This rule obviously makes a lot of sense. We can get some crazy ideas from any piece of literature if we try to read things into it rather than read what it plainly says. That's very true for the Bible, as well.

For starters, there are a couple of Christmas implications in the Bible -- ones that have been thoroughly debunked many times. Tradition says that there were three wise men who visited baby Jesus. Further tradition puts them at the manger. Neither is stated in the Bible (and to tell the truth, neither is really implied, and that's why I'm not using these for illustrations). There were three gifts given to Jesus by the magi, and the same verse states that the wise men visited Jesus at His house, not the inn where He was born.

So here's Rule #3's official illustration from Scripture. It's an easy one. In Galatians 4:13-14 Paul makes a statement which some say implies that Jesus was an angel: "but you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time; and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself." (NASB)

If we had only that verse to read between the lines to determine Jesus' origin, it might be possible to suppose that He was an angel. However, it's easy to establish that this weak implication is incorrect.

Colossians 3:9 (NLT): "For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body."

John 1:1, 14 (NLT): "In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God... So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son."

John 10:30 (NLT): "The Father and I are one."

All three of the passages immediately above make it clear without doubt that Jesus was not an angel; not a created being. They clearly and explicitly state that Jesus was God in human form, shattering any implication that might otherwise be drawn from Paul's thanks to the church at Galatia.

If this rule is applied without grace for other believers when studying deeper theological issues, it can lead to some serious disagreements and even nasty arguments. This is, for example, the basic reason we have two groups that serve the same God but are opposed to one another (or one another's teaching), sometimes angrily so: Calvinism and Arminianism.

As I stated in previous posts, your Bible study should always be accompanied by prayer and by expectation that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes and your heart. It should never be done to try to make the Word "prove" what you already want to believe, and it should never be used as a club to beat someone else over the head.

Read more »

But I Can't!

I imagine myself standing outside my daughter's room, aware that it resembles a tornado-swept laundromat/toy store more than it does a 12-year-old's bedroom, knocking on the locked door and saying in as mild-mannered a voice as possible, "Alaina, open your door so I can come in and clean you room for you." Note that I'm saying I'll do it for her, not with her.

And I imagine her slightly-muted response, "But it's too messy. I CAN'T clean it." Believe it or not, I have heard this kind of statement from her. If you have a typical kid, you've probably heard something like it, too.

Now, this scenario is not too typical in our house, but I want you to see the disconnection in the illustration. I offer to clean the room for her and her response is that she can't clean the room, and she keeps her door locked. Obviously we're not communicating on the same channel here.

Read more »

5 Things Jesus Taught... (Part 5)

Finally (for this series, anyway)...

5) "Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you." (Matthew 7:12, NLT)

If we wanted to over-analyze it (something I tend to do), we could get into a pitcher-verses-batter scenario: the pitcher reasons, "He's going to expect me to throw a fastball here, so I can't throw a fastball. I could use my slider, but he knows that's my second-best pitch, therefore I can't throw the slider. Realizing that, since we
both know I can't throw the slider in this situation, I'll throw the curve..." and so forth. (Check out "The Princess Bride" for more on this scenario.)

That is, as followers of Jesus, we know we're supposed to look out others before we look out for ourselves. Understanding that, if we're supposed to treat others the way we want to be treated (and we don't want to be treated better than anyone else), we can treat others worse than we treat ourselves. And so the endless cycle could continue for the too-deep-thinker. But the obvious meaning is that we should have grace toward everyone. Treat them better than they have a right to be treated. This is the way that God has treated us. I heard a fantastic quote today:

"You can't demontrate grace to someone until the other person doesn't deserve it."

Ow. Really?? (Yes, peeps. I'm afraid that's basically the definition of "grace.")

Honestly, I probably deserve to be humiliated, degraded, and punished publicly for any number of things that I've done. But God sees me as righteous -- as good, and worthy of knowing Him as Father -- not becaue of anything good I've done to make up for the bad things, but because Jesus Christ has given me that status.

"You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had:" (Philippians 2:5, NLT)

Jesus willingly died a criminal's death at the hands of the dirty, rebellious beings He Himself created. It's a tall order to think that He might expect the same of us, isn't it?

Read more »

5 Things Jesus Taught That We Apparently Ought Not Take Literally (Part 4)

Day four: does Jesus' instruction on giving stand up to real-life scrutiny?

But when you give to someone in need, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you." (Matthew 6:3-4, NLT)

Right off the bat, you'll probably realize that your left hand doesn't have eyes or a brain and neither does your right hand. Therefore we can know that this whole statement is intended as simply an emblematic thought. We can confidently deduce that Jesus didn't literally mean, "Give your gifts in private" when He said ,"Give your gifts in private."

Further, if we actually did give our gifts to the needy in private without letting anyone know about it, I wonder if we'd still be able to declare it on our income tax. In modern society, that's just what we do. And we're not actually doing it to get a return on our money; we're just keeping a good, solid record of our contributions (to be non-caustic for a moment, it's a very good thing to keep solid financial records and I am not suggesting otherwise). We always need to make sure we cover our own interests in case God drops the ball and doesn't reward us as Jesus said He would. You see, it might not be a monetary reward, and when we give money we should logically expect money back.

Another question: if we lived this way, would we still be able to get the occasional awesome free gift in exchange for our donation to such-and-such a ministry or charity? After all, human nature is such that in order for us to be reminded to give to needy people, we have to be given something in return. If we can't let anyone know about our gift, they won't know where to send the miracle spring water.

Finally, I don't think this applies at all to church building programs, although they're probably just as good as "giving to the needy." We should give with the expectation of a plaque with our name on it in order to be a good example of stewardship for other believers to see so that they, too will give to people in need the building program. Jesus may have forgotten about our giving being a good example to other people.

In case you didn't pick up on it for some reason, I'll close with a reminder that this post is delivered with sarcasm. This is not done to belittle anyone or throw stones; sometimes seeing ourselves through ridiculous lenses can point us toward truth.

Read more »

5 Things Jesus Taught That We Apparently Ought Not Take Literally (Part 3)

Welcome to number three! I've thought about this for a while and I may retroactively change the title of this series to "5 Things Jesus Taught That He Apparently Didn't Really Mean," because these really aren't literal-vs-figurative issues.

That being said, let's move along and have a look at another important thing Jesus said during the Sermon on the Mount that He didn't really mean for us to do (therefore it may not be so important):

(Obligatory note that this is intended to communicate a point by using irony.)

3) "You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you!" (Matthew 5:43-44, NLT)

I'm not sure I really need to elaborate on this one. But I will, otherwise I wouldn't really have much of a post here, would I?

Who in his right mind would do this? Oh, I know some of us can muster up a prayer for our enemies, but it's probably often something along the lines of, "Father God, I just want to ask You, Father God, to just please make it clear to Aunt Mabel, Father God, that she is dead-wrong and I am right," or "Lord, I pray You'll give Joe Bob the smack-down for the way he treated me last week. Vengeance is Yours, as Scripture saith. Any may it be sweet."

To be sure, some people claim that Stephen in the first-century Church seemed to think that Jesus meant this to be acted upon: "As they stoned him, Stephen prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' He fell to his knees, shouting, 'Lord, don’t charge them with this sin!' And with that, he died." (Acts 7:59-60, NLT) However, this can easily be dismissed by noting the cultural differences between our society and society 2,000 years ago.

I anticipate that the majority of Christians reading this don't particularly love their enemies or pray for blessings on them. I say this because I've been in that boat, and probably only 2% or so of the Christians I've ever known actually put this into practice. No, I don't know every Christian, but I'm confident that I know a healthy representative sampling of them.

Therefore it's glaringly obvious that we should consider this teaching of Jesus to be something that isn't really meant to be put into practice, but rather an unattainable spiritual concept that is always to be thought of in a good way. If we dwell on this idea long enough, we will start to think it's actually true of us (though in fact it may not be representative of us at all). And that makes Jesus proud of us.

Read more »

5 Things Jesus Taught That We Apparently Ought Not Take Literally (Part 2)

The honor, respect, and obedience due Jesus Christ and what He taught is often sadly lacking among those who claim to be His followers. We seem to be incredibly hard of (spiritual) hearing, or maybe we're just too thick-headed to really understand sometimes.

I'm reminded of a scene in Monty Python's film The Life of Brian (a movie which many understandably find shockingly sacrilegious). Jesus, standing on a hill far away as He teaches a large crowd, says, "Blessed are the peacemakers..." The little group in the scene has been arguing and as a result others can't hear, so an agitated man asks, "Could you be quiet, please? What was that?" He's told by another man, "I think He said, 'Blessed are the cheese-makers.'" A woman expresses her puzzlement, "Ah. What's so special about the cheese-makers?" A man attempts to clear things up by saying, "Well obviously it's not meant to be taken literally, it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products."

Too close for comfort. We try to listen but Jesus' voice is drowned out by everything else going on around us and we just pick up little bits we hear from others, often far afield from what Jesus really said. Often we honestly don't care to listen (and Jesus' teachings seem to fit quite nicely into two hours on Sunday, anyway). On that note that we will commence with the second teaching of Jesus that is apparently not meant to be taken literally.

(I didn't want to spell it out, but if this all sounds like I've gone a bit crazy, please put on your Irony Glasses and read it again.)

2) "So if you are presenting a sacrifice at the altar in the Temple and you suddenly remember that someone has something against you, leave your sacrifice there at the altar. Go and be reconciled to that person. Then come and offer your sacrifice to God." (Matthew 5:23-24, NLT)

Why shouldn't we take this literally? What I see first is that most of us don't go to a temple to offer a sacrifice, so that automatically puts this passage in "good example" territory, sort of like a witty sermon illustration.

And as with yesterday's point number one, we have tradition on our side. Not many Christians actually do this, right? If someone harbors resentment toward us and we know we're in the right, that's the other person's problem. I probably don't need to mention that grudges are apparently okay, otherwise followers of Jesus would not hold them.

So as with yesterday's non-literal teaching, since we have so little evidence of this happening in the Church, we can safely file this one away in the "good thing to keep in mind" category, as well. Jesus must have meant that if this is what we aspire to do in our hearts, that's good enough, whether or not we actually follow through with it.

(Finishing on a serious note, one thing to notice is that Jesus said that I shouldn't offer my sacrifice if someone has something against me; He doesn't say it the other way around. Of course I must not let my own ill feelings linger, but here Jesus is talking about going to those people who have something against me, have mocked me, persecuted me, or lied about me -- whether they have absolutely no reason or a very good reason.)

Read more »

5 Things Jesus Taught That We Apparently Ought Not Take Literally (Part 1)

Welcome, kids! A fabulous multi-part series begins today. Each day we'll take a teaching of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount, and I'll explain why each one was probably not meant to be taken literally. Let's jump right in, shall we?

1) "God blesses you when people mock you and persecute you and lie about you and say all sorts of evil things against you because you are my followers. Be happy about it! Be very glad! For a great reward awaits you in heaven. And remember, the ancient prophets were persecuted in the same way." (Matthew 5:11-12, NLT)

Why shouldn't we take this literally? First of all, when people mock us, persecute us, and lie about us, it's usually not because we're following Jesus. Typically people do things like this to us because of things like our really bad hair, because we may have a more cushy job than the next person, or maybe we have a terrible attitude about whatever seems to be bothering us at any given moment.

Second, when people do act like this toward us, we Christians most frequently react in a variety of ways, none of which is "getting happy" (though there are the rare exceptions). Rather, we get angry or depressed, we might decide to stop talking to the offending person (or worse, we may un-friend them on Facebook), and if someone lies about us we'll make every effort to clear our good name, usually by degrading the other person.

I can't think of too many people I know who've been glad in the face of persecution. Unfortunately, I don't have a great record, either.

So it's obvious from the way most of we Christ-followers behave that Jesus didn't mean for us to take Him literally here; just look at the evidence. I'd say that tradition and history are on the side of Jesus being figurative with the "joy in trials" statement. What He probably meant is that if you consider yourself the type of person who might hold up well under such circumstances, everything is just fine and you will be blessed.

Stay tuned as we present another eye-opening exposition tomorrow!

Please note that while there is truth to much of what I've written above, I was going for thick irony in the conclusion.

Read more »

Imitator or Fan?

I haven't always liked Boston (the band; I don't even know what to think about the city, having never been there, and I'm not much for any kind of baked beans). In the early '80s my brother would plug an eight-track tape of Boston's eponymous album into the stereo of his '77 Mustang II (it was the best-looking Mustang II I've ever seen, hands-down), and I'd plead with him to change it. The organ, in particular, was incredibly cheesy and 1970's-sounding, and I was into anything but retro music. I hated it. At some point not too much later, though, I realized that the band was phenomenal and their music style was incredibly unique, and at that point I became a fan. (Have a look below; who wouldn't be a fan?!)



On the way home from work not long ago I was listening to "Hitch a Ride" with my 12-year-old daughter (who was introduced to Boston's music while playing Guitar Hero III, I believe). As the first solo instrumental wound down and the acoustic guitar began to pave the way for the upcoming incredible guitar goodness, I commented to Alaina, "This has always been one of my favorite guitar solos." We then proceeded to listen to -- you guessed it -- one of my favorite guitar solos. It's still amazing to me after all these years.

As the song wrapped up I casually thought, "Tom Scholz is really one of my biggest guitar influences." The other side of my brain would not let this statement go unchecked and immediately fired back, "Oh. Really? Name a song you've recorded that gives any indication of sounding like Tom Scholz." The first side of my brain thought for a moment and grudgingly conceded to the second. "Okay, so maybe I just like Tom Scholz's playing a whole lot." Both brain sections agreed.

There is a major difference between liking someone and being influenced by him. If I like someone, then that's that. If I claim to be influenced by him, there will be some change in me associated with my listening to his music. Otherwise there wouldn't really be any influence. If I say that one of my musical influences is Floyd Cramer, but you listen to every one of my songs and realize that there's not a shred of his style, feel, chord voicings, etc., then you'll wonder why I said he was an influence. On the other hand, if I said that Floyd Cramer was one of my favorite pianists, you could easily believe it even after listening to all my Floyd Cramer-less songs.

There's a major difference between liking Jesus Christ and being influenced and changed by Him. Many people -- most people alive, surely -- would agree that Jesus was an incredible teacher and gave moral lessons that are excellent. Others will not only like Him and His teaching, but will actually follow Him and will become imitators of Christ -- imitators of God. (This is all over the Word; places like Leviticus 19:2 (and 1 Peter 1:15-16), Luke 6:35-36, John 20:21, Ephesians 5:1-2, 25-26, Philippians 2:5-11, Hebrews 12:2-3, etc.)

It's pretty easy (and sometimes unfortunately it feels satisfying) to pinpoint this in someone else's life, but how about your own? Who are you? If you had to take a good, hard look at your life, would you find that you're a Jesus imitator or simply a Jesus fan?

Read more »

The Office

What I write here will not settle well with some readers. I'm not trying to be sensational or ruffle feathers. As always, I am asking us (both you and me) to objectively look at why we believe what we believe, and whether or not those beliefs and our resulting actions line up with the Word of God.

In a discussion like this, speaking in generalities is necessary, for better or worse. Remember that I'm addressing a position or an office, not a person or personality.

The other day I quickly jotted down some characteristics of a particular position. Read through my list and let me know if there's an office or position in the Church in the New Testament that has responsibilities, actions, or reactions similar to these:

• The President of the USA is elected by the people (some who vote for him just so they can vote against the other guy, some who vote the party line, some who are illegal aliens, some who don't care to vote)
• His speeches are meant to inspire, and the better his stage presence is, the more the general public thinks he's great/intelligent/wise
• He has accountability -- he can be impeached... but usually after the damage is done
• He is recognized by most Americans (except probably those in high, behind-the-scenes political positions) as the most important man in the USA
• If he goes down, he takes his party with him until they're able to put things back together for the next election
• If he goes down, he further shatters the faith of people in politicians
• When the economy does well, those in his party give him the credit
• When the economy does poorly, his opponents blame it on him
• The measure of his success is based upon numbers
• To those who hold the party position or are uninformed (whether intentionally or simply due to neglect), their understanding of the world is shaped by his actions and opinions

Before I go further, know that I have no desire to set up a straw man and then knock it down, so if you see fallacies in what I present here, please tell me where those problems are and let's address them.

Regarding the list above, is there anyone in the New Testament Church, whether in a localized fellowship or in an over-arching capacity, whose roles are along these lines? Is there instruction for anything similar? If so, I'm interested in knowing about it. But if this is absent from Scripture, why would you suppose that is?

Now flash forward. Do we see anyone in the modern localized or global Church whose role is something along these lines? If so, would you consider such a role to be helpful or harmful to the living body of Christ? I believe these things serve to take leadership, attention, authority, and prominence away from Jesus Christ. As a side note, if this were an office God intended for anyone in His Church to fill, I'm certain it would at least be mentioned in the Word.

Be very aware that I'm not maligning any person. I have quite a number of personal, Godly friends whose positions fit into this general outline. None filled his role in an attempt to bring glory or honor to himself, and most of these people live life sacrificially, with hearts of true servants and with great love for Jesus. Unfortunately, this does not validate the office or position.

In contrast to our nation or a business, there is a living Head of the Church, but He is not a mere man (Ephesians 1:21-23). Something huge that makes the Church strange and alien to the world is that its Head is a literal living entity, but is not flesh-and-blood. In a secular setup there is no possible way an organization could be run without a person at the helm. We've taken that for granted in the Church (1 Corinthians 14:33 is often taken woefully out of context and used to say that this is necessary for organizational structure).

Who leads the Church? Does it matter? Should we do something because it's "always" been done that way?

If the Church is the body of Christ, Jesus Christ is the head of His Church.

Read more »

Reading E-Mails From the Rooftops

I believe modern technology has given us the chance for a new perspective on something Jesus said.

“Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees—their hypocrisy. The time is coming when everything that is covered up will be revealed, and all that is secret will be made known to all. Whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be shouted from the housetops for all to hear!" (Luke 12:2b-3, NLT)

Obviously Jesus is using a bit of metaphor here; I doubt that there will be a town crier who climbs on top of a house in your neighborhood, screaming at the top of his lungs to tell them how bad you talked about your co-worker the other day, or how you insulted the hairdresser who cut your hair too short (again).

But I don't think we believe that Jesus knew what He was talking about, or we really don't believe Him. There's not much metaphor in "all that is secret will be made known to all."

Several days ago I was going to mention something to a friend in an e-mail, and it would've involved a personal observation about another person. Not even a judgment call; just my reaction to something in particular. What I was going to say wasn't bad, but before I hit "send" I read it again and thought, "How would I feel if I heard that this person said the exact same thing about me? Would it tell me that he's close to Christ, or would I think that he's being petty?"

I deleted that paragraph; it showed me some things about myself. It told me about my hypocrisy.

Does this kind of thing fit what Jesus was talking about in Luke 12? You'll probably want to read the surrounding passages.

Read more »