The NRA, Big Government, Israel, and Jesus

By Carl Medearis

Cross-Posted from www.carlmedearis.com

I like that title.

I confuse people. Sometimes I say that’s my spiritual gift – Confusion. Not sure if that’s in the 1 Corinthians or Romans 12 lists, but if it’s not – it should be. I have the gift of Confusion.

It’s a good gift, to be honest, since most people are not confused, I can help them! They know exactly what they believe and why they believe it. Just ask them. I grew up surrounded by a world who knew what they believed – and I gladly joined them. in this world, which, of course, was fully supported by ample Biblical texts – God loved Israel. He also liked Guns quite a bit and so did I. And naturally He was Conservative. You have to be Conservative if you’re God. Think about it. He sticks to his guns (pun intended – after I wrote it). He doesn’t change. He’s the same yesterday, today and forever. If that’s not Conservative, I don’t know what is. And the reason God is for small government is because we all know that Big Government (notice the capitol letters) replaces God.

So that’s how I grew up. I can’t remember my parents ever telling me I should believe all those things, but I did. And most of my friends did. We all belonged to the NRA. I had a patch on my jacket. We were Republican because they had morals – the other side didn’t. We were pro-life (at least when that life is not yet born), and we were pro-Israel since they were God’s chosen. Life was simple. Clear. And pretty dang good!

Then I started daring to venture out into the rest of the world. Where I met d…d…democrats who seemed to love God and their neighbors at least as much as I did. And people from Chicago (like my dear Chris) who only knew guns as killing tools for bad guys – she was horrified when I first showed her my closet full of guns. I met Palestinians who claimed that God’s Chosen weren’t treating them well. And I realized that many poor people (who loved God) almost seem to need the government for a time. Odd.

Unfortunately these debates are quickly polarized by both sides into simplistic sound-bytes in order to paint a black and white picture – if you’re not 100% with us, then you must be a ________.

I own guns and would like to continue owning guns. I might even buy some more guns. I like to hunt. Kill animals and eat them. But I never ever need more than 3 shells in my gun – neither in my shotgun (for bird hunting or shooting clay pigeons) nor in my rifle (for big game hunting). When I go target shooting, I also don’t need more than just a few shells in my gun. Ever. When I buy a new gun, I will be delighted to have a background check – actually that might be interesting in my case. Anyway…I’m still happy to do it!

I prefer small government. I think people of faith ought to take most of the responsibility that government now does. So…whenever they (we) start doing that – it’ll be better. I’m a fan of the free market system. No bailouts. None. Not of banks or businesses. If they fail – we rebuild. The hypocrisy here is that my friends who supported Bush’s bank bailouts, are all furious over Obama’s. Wonder why that is?

I still love Israel. Actually more now than ever before. As I get to know Israeli Jews, I am encouraged to find out that they are exactly like the Arabs I love so much. Imagine that. After all, they are half brothers. I’m even happy for them to be “chosen.” Personally, I enjoy being “chosen,” so why can’t they!

And, as always. I come back to the way Jesus seemed to engage difficult and controversial issues. He was pretty clever about it. He somehow stood firm without being clear which side he was supporting. He consistently put the question back to the questioner. He went to the heart while often dodging the issue brought up. I wonder if I could be more like that? I’d like to be.

To be a demo-repub-pro-life-all-the-way-careful-gun-owner-lover-of-the-poor-IsraePal-lover-of-God and Follower of Jesus, person. A gifted Confuser who brings people back to the ultimate Answer of all confusion – Jesus the Messiah.

The Apostle Paul was not a misogynist homophobe!

Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “To be great is to be misunderstood.” If Emerson was right, then the Apostle Paul might be one of the greatest men to ever live. Few religious leaders have been as grossly misunderstood as Paul. Unlike Jesus, who most people regard as a great moral teacher, Paul is routinely accused of the most egregious sins according to modern sensibilities: misogyny, classism, homophobia, anti-Semitism. The idea that Paul invented Christianity is so fashionable nowadays that many people take it as a given, as if it’s obviously true. The irony in all this unexamined Paul-bashing is that fewer people today are taking the time to ponder the crux of his moral message: “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life”—a message that both society and the Church need to hear.

Yes, there are passages in Paul’s letters that would seem to paint him as pro-slavery, anti-women, and homophobic. But just as Muslim scholars insist that the passages of the Qur’an that seem out of step with modern ethical norms be read in light of their historical context, the same is true with Paul’s letters. Paul’s advice to slaves (obey your masters) and their masters (treat your slaves well) may seem off-kilter today, but given the historical situation, his advice can hardly be described as unreasonable. It should also be noted that Paul insisted that slaves who could attain their freedom should do so—and that he condemned slave traders.

As far as women are concerned, for all of the passages that seem to consign women to second- class status in the home and the Church—and there are plenty of scholars who insist that those passages teach the exact opposite of that—all of them pail in comparison to Paul’s notion that in Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female.” Whether we’re talking about women or slaves, Paul can rightly be considered a progressive in light of the customs, attitudes, and social norms of his day.

Which leaves us with the homophobia charge…

The definition of homophobia according to the Encarta World English dictionary is “an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, and their culture.” Given that in all of Paul’s letters, there’s only one unmistakable reference to same-sex relations (The words translated as homosexual in I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 are highly ambiguous words in the Greek), Paul can hardly be said to have had “an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality”, especially when you take into account that in the one clear reference to same sex relations in Paul’s letters (Romans 1:23-17), the relations that Paul is describing are the highly lustful relations that accompanied pagan temple worship in his day.

While it’s not my intention to settle the debate as to whether Paul disapproved of all same-sex relations, even if the traditional view is correct, which is that Paul viewed same sex relations as inherently sinful, whether in the context of monogamous relationships or not, an obsessive inquiry into how Paul felt about same-sex sex misses the forest through the trees. In Paul’s theology, Christian morality isn’t about following a set of ironclad, inflexible rules and regulations. It’s about Spirit-filled followers of Jesus dying to the letter of the Law and rising to a new life in the Spirit (Romans 7:6), a life where the Spirit-indwelt conscience is the new moral compass (Romans 14:22-23, 2 Corinthians 3:6), and the rule of thumb that satisfies all of God’s laws is to love your neighbor as yourself (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14).

“The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life,” says Paul.

In Paul’s theology, the death and resurrection of Jesus was the historical game-changer that shifted the focus away from the rules and regulations of the Law and towards the Spirit-indwelt conscience as the arbiter for moral decisions in the life of the believer.

Paul insists, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.”

Yes, freedom.

Paul was the Apostle of human freedom.

How tragic it is that society maligns him.

And the Church misrepresents him.

Was Jesus a fundamentalist?

By Aaron D. Taylor

When I was in my early 20’s, a Bible teacher by the name of Dianne Kannady posed a rhetorical question that continues to haunt me to this day: “If Jesus was your only source of information about what Christianity should look like, how would you live your life?”

That question has gotten me into a lot of trouble over the years.

Consider the three things that instantly come to mind.

1. Jesus preached nonviolence.

2. Jesus was a faith healer

3. Jesus challenged the religious fundamentalists of his day

Take any of these three statements, declare that followers of Jesus should do the same thing today, and somebody’s going to get pissed.

Preaching nonviolence may win you accolades in certain circles, but there are an equal number of people that will hate you for it. And who in their right mind would want to attempt a ministry that revolves around the miraculous today? With the exception of people that watch TBN, everybody despises faith-healers—at least here in America.

It’s rare enough to find a person that embodies the values of 1 (preaching nonviolence) and 2 (faith-healing) simultaneously, but the real contradiction seems to be between 2 (faith-healing) and 3 (challenging religious fundamentalism), because the kind of certainty that it takes to say to a crippled man “rise up and walk” doesn’t lend itself to the kind of nuance that it takes to challenge religious fundamentalism.

Yet that’s exactly what Jesus did…

Take this story for example:

When Jesus was about to be received up (into heaven), he set out for Jerusalem, bound and determined to get there. So he sent some messengers before him, and the messengers entered a Samaritan village to make things ready for him. But the Samaritans did not receive Jesus, because Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. And when his disciples, James and John, saw what the Samaritans had done, they said to Jesus,

“Lord, would you like us to call down fire from heaven and consume them, like Elijah did?”

But Jesus turned to them and rebuked them, saying, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of. The Son of Man didn’t come to destroy people’s lives. He came to save them!” (Luke 9:51-56, rephrased from the King James Version)

Some background information is in order.

Jews and Samaritans despised each other in Jesus’ day. Jews said that the proper place to worship was in Jerusalem. Samaritans disagreed. Which is why they weren’t jumping for joy at the opportunity of hosting a Jewish rabbi on his way to Jerusalem. The Samaritans had a fundamentalism of their own, which said that if you don’t worship at the right holy place, you can’t be a true messenger of God.

So they rejected Jesus.

Then there’s James and John. Not only were the Samaritans of the wrong people (strike one), and the wrong religion (strike two), they had flat-out rejected Jesus (major strike three). James and John knew that rejecting Jesus is a big no-no, so they must have assumed that Jesus felt the same way about the Samaritans as they did, otherwise why would they imagine that Jesus might go along with their plan to call down fire from heaven and incinerate them?

And notice the way they asked the question, “Do you want us to call down fire from heaven….As Elijah did?”

In the Bible that they read—what Jews today call the Hebrew Scriptures, and what Christians call the Old Testament—Elijah really did call fire down from heaven to consume his enemies.They weren't making that up. The Bible really does say that! (For the curious, the story is found in 2 Kings Chapter 1). But the disciples took the story literally, meaning they believed that the story applied to them in their day in the same way that it applied to another people at another time and place.

And Jesus nailed them for it.

Jesus said, “You don’t know what kind of spirit you are of.”

We see many rejections in this story. The Samaritans rejected Jesus because he worshiped in the “wrong” holy place. The disciples rejected the Samaritans because they rejected Jesus. And Jesus rejected the way his disciples used the Bible to shore up their rejection of the Samaritans.

The disciples read the Bible accurately, but with the wrong spirit. As Jesus said, “The Son of man didn’t come to destroy people’s lives, but to save them.” Is it possible to read the Bible accurately, but with the wrong spirit?

How might people do that today?

Kind atheists or hateful Christians? Which does God prefer?

Pastor Shawn Craig of Crosspoint Church, also a member of the famous Christian group Philips, Craig, and Dean wrote a thoughtful post the other day about whether God prefers kind atheists or hateful Christians. When I lived in Missouri, I attended Crosspoint, which at the time was called South County Christian Center. My parents remain faithful members, and for good reason. Pastor Shawn is a Bible teacher par excellence!

In this particular post, (see the link below) I found Pastor Shawn's take on the parable of the Good Samaritan to be worth reading, although it doesn't appear that he has grappled too much with the fact that Jesus made the heretic the hero of the story, and what that might mean in terms of how Christians today should view people of different faiths. The closest parallel to the way Jews thought of Samaritans in their day is the way Christians think of Muslims today.

How would the average Christian feel today if they heard a Sunday morning sermon about a guy getting beat up, left for dead, and while the worship leader and the youth pastor pass him by, the person that actually helps the man is a Muslim named Ahmed. This is how the Jews would have heard Jesus' story. The guy that was supposed to be the "bad guy" turned out to be the one who actually fulfilled the great commandment, which is to love your neighbor as yourself.

Contrary to what Pastor Shawn seems to be saying in this post,(and I do emphasize the word seems, since I very well could have misread the post) I do think that the parable of the Good Samaritan lends itself to the question of which is more important: orthodoxy (right believing) or orthopraxy (right living)? I don't agree that it's inappropriate to ask the question of who might God prefer: kind atheists (or Muslims, Jews, gays, insert the standard evangelical heretic here) or Christians who have their theological ducts in order--that is to say, they believe all the right things--but despise outsiders.

Having said that......

Pastor Shawn makes an excellent point when he says that God prefers people that believe in Jesus.

Can't argue with that.

And, of course, I agree that the Old Testament law, as well as many of the next-to-impossible demands that Jesus sets in the Sermon on the Mount, are meant to frustrate us to the point of acknowledging that it's only by grace that we can be saved, not by any works of righteousness or merit on our own part. I just don't think that's the point that Jesus is making in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

I could be wrong.

It wouldn't be the first time.

Read the article here.

What say you?

Can rich people get to heaven?

I like stories like The Boy Who Cried Wolf or The Tortoise and the Hare, the ones where the smallest of children can grasp the moral of the tale. But a story that doesn’t resolve? Not so much. Especially if the story deals with a high-stakes issue, like –say—what do I need to do to make it to heaven when I die?

Which is why I really don’t like the following story:

A man came up to Jesus and asked him,

“Good teacher, what do I have to do to inherit eternal life?”

Jesus said to the man,

“Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, and that’s God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

The man replied,

“Which ones?”

Jesus answered,

“Don’t murder, Don’t commit adultery, Don’t steal, Don’t bear false witness, Honor your father and your mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

The young man said to Jesus,

“I’ve kept all of these commandments since the time I was young, what am I still missing?”

So Jesus said to the man, “If you want to be perfect, go sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow Me.”

But when the young man heard what Jesus said, he went away sorrowful, because he had a lot of possessions.

Then Jesus said to his disciples,

“Listen up real good! It’s hard for a rich man to enter heaven’s kingdom. Let me say it again, it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven’s kingdom.”

When Jesus’ disciples heard what he said, they were blown away!

“Who then can be saved?” they asked him.

But Jesus looked at them and said,

“With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Leave it to Jesus to confuse the heck out of me!

Some immediate questions come to mind:

Did Jesus really mean for everyone to sell all of their possessions, or did he mean it just for this one man? I sincerely hope that he meant it just this once; otherwise St. Francis and Mother Theresa are going to have a really long time to get to know each other in heaven, since they and maybe a few saintly others would be the only ones there!

And that whole camel through the eye of the needle thing: What is that about?

And, yes, the eye of the needle means exactly what you’re thinking. Not some gate in Jerusalem. Jesus said it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle that you used to stitch that Noah’s Ark for your child’s bedroom—than for a rich guy to get to heaven.

Let. That. Sink. In.

Unless some freakishly unexplainable phenomenon occurs where camels all of the sudden start popping out of needles (imagine the Discovery Channel documentary on that one), I have to conclude that no rich person will be in heaven.

Except that’s not the end of the story…

Jesus’ disciples must have been as baffled as I am, because the story says they were “greatly astonished”, so much so that they asked Jesus, “Who then can be saved?” That’s when Jesus said, “With men, this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible.”

How’s that for a curveball?

On the one hand, Jesus says that it’s mind-bendingly difficult for rich people to get to heaven (and no, he’s not talking about some woo-woo experience of spiritual ecstasy on earth. He’s talking about actual heaven. Eternal life. Think of the rich man’s question). On the other hand, Jesus seems to be saying that as impossible as it is for rich people to get to heaven, even that’s not impossible with God.

Which brings me back to the beginning of the story.

Remember what the rich man called Jesus? The rich man called Jesus a “good teacher.” And Jesus replied by saying, “Why do you call me good? No one is good, but One: God!”

Some people use this verse to claim that Jesus denied his deity, but Jesus does no such thing here. Rather, Jesus is saying to the rich man, “Do you really understand the implications of what you’re saying by calling me good?” According to Jesus, no human being in the strictest sense can actually be called good. Only God is good. And no matter how much the rich man thought he had kept the commandments, he still fell short.

And so do I.

Like I said, this story doesn’t resolve for me.

If I’m going to take Jesus seriously, then I have to conclude that it’s very difficult for rich people to get to heaven. And as an American who lives a fairly comfortable lifestyle, I know he’s talking about me!

But then Jesus also says that with God all things are possible. That's where grace kicks in. So the one thing I can know for sure about this story is that when it comes to the question: Can a person be good without God? Jesus’ answer is unequivocal:

The answer is no.

(This story is found in Matthew 19:16-26)

God is pro-peace

By Aaron D. Taylor

On January 31st 2004, the late Jerry Falwell wrote an article for the World Net Daily called God is pro-war. While the article was intended to rally support for President Bush and the invasion of Iraq, for many it left the indelible impression that evangelicals are uber-nationalistic war- mongers, willing to plunge the world into endless conflict in order to fulfill their apocalyptic fantasies. As a person who (loosely) identifies with the evangelical tradition, allow me to make a clear, unambiguous, declaration:

God is pro-peace!

You may be thinking, “Just how exactly does a guy who claims to believe in the inspiration of Scripture arrive at the conclusion that God is pro-peace? Has this guy even read the Bible? Or maybe he’s one of those amnesia-type Christians, the ones that read through the Bible every year as part of their daily devotions, and every time they get to the slavery and genocide passages, their mind goes______________.

Maybe it wasn’t those exact words, but believe me, I get it!

What about the Canaanites? The Jebusites? The Amalekites? That verse in the Psalms about babies that nobody wants to talk about? And the one about women being forced to marry their—oh my! Did Moses really command the Israelites to march into towns and kill everything that breathes? What about hell? The infinite inferno that evangelicals believe awaits everybody (except for them) after they die? The god that evangelicals worship, the one that allegedly hates gays, Muslims ,socialists, and feminists—is pro-peace?

I’d be lying if I said that I haven’t agonized over some of the awful things that are in the Bible, as well as the picture of God that many associate with the evangelical tradition, but at the end of the day my faith isn’t about who gets into heaven and who doesn’t, it’s not about whether hell is literal, metaphorical, or temporal; it’s not about which political system God likes more than others, and most importantly, it’s not even about which system of Biblical interpretation is the right one, whether the Bible is factually inerrant in every detail or whether vast sections of the Bible can be understood as allegorical, these are all important questions, but they all miss the point. At the heart of the evangelical tradition (and indeed, the Christian faith), is the conviction that God’s character is fully and finally revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

This is why I can say that God is pro-peace….Because Jesus is pro-peace.

Jesus said, “Love your enemies” and “Blessed are the peacemakers.” He refused to participate in violent insurrection against the Romans even though, by all standards, throwing off the Roman occupiers would have been a “just war.” As the Roman soldiers were piercing his flesh and crowning him with thorns, his response was “Father forgive them.”

The New Testament boldly declares that Jesus is “the image of the invisible God”, “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.” (Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:3) Notice the word exact. Exact is a strong word that leaves no wiggle room for deviation. God is exactly like Jesus. This means that whatever image of God I might have, whether it comes from my circumstances or life experiences, whether it comes from my imagination or even my own religious tradition, if the image of God in my head can’t be reconciled with the man who loved, blessed, and prayed for his enemies even while they were crucifying him—then that image is wrong!

Today the drumbeats of war are sounding again, and this time the anti-Christ du jour is Iran, the country (ironically) strengthened by our last invasion. If you’re wondering if evangelicals can summon the resources within their faith to encourage proactive peace making, the answer is a clear and unambiguous yes. If God is like Jesus, then God is pro-peace.

I pray the message is clearer this time around.

A version of this article is on God's Politics

The Bible is not a public policy manual!

By Aaron D. Taylor

My pastor and I have a friendly tiff going on. He says that Jesus was strictly a-political; therefore Christians should abstain from politics completely. I say that Jesus challenged violent, poverty-inducing, socio-political structures throughout his life and ministry; therefore Christians have a duty to advocate for peace and to speak out for the poor and the oppressed. Both of us are hardheaded, and neither of us cedes much in our debates, but we always walk away as friends, because at the end of the day there’s a key component to the discussion that we both agree on: The Bible is not a public policy manual!

I realize that might feel like an outrageous statement to some. After all, the first five books of the Bible are commonly referred to as the “Books of the Law.” These books contain legal codes that governed the every-day life of the ancient children of Israel, ranging from personal hygiene to how to prosecute thieves and murderers. Furthermore, the Hebrew prophets railed against the kings of their day for making “unjust laws” and “oppressive decrees” (Isaiah 10:1), implying that there is such a thing as an unjust law—and woe to the legislators who write them!

Over and over the Scriptures reveal a God who cares deeply about the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the alien, yet strangely the man who Christians believe embodies the will of God in action (Jesus) refused to take sides in the bitter partisan divisions of His day. Jesus welcomed both zealots and tax collectors as members of his inner circle. And when two brothers asked Jesus to solve an inheritance dispute, He responded by saying, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?” (Luke 12:14). If Jesus intended his followers to establish themselves as the moral guardians of society, He had a funny way of showing it.

The pattern continues with the Apostle Paul. The indisputable case for followers of Jesus not involving themselves in judging those outside the Church comes from a passage in I Corinthians 5:12-13, where Paul says, “ What business is it of mine to judge those outside the Church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.” Paul clearly established a demarcation between Christians judging matters within the community of believers (allowed) and matters outside the community of believers (not allowed). At the very least, this suggests that Christians who think they can impose what they perceive as “Biblical values” on secular society are—more often than not— wrong. There’s simply no way to translate the Bible into concrete public policy, at least not without a considerable degree of ambiguity.

For example, most of my conservative friends are convinced that they have a Biblical mandate to outlaw abortion and gay marriage, even though abortion is only mentioned once in Scripture, and the reference is—oddly—the Prophet Jeremiah cursing the man at his mother’s side for not aborting him! (Jeremiah 20:14-18)…and gay marriage was hardly an issue on the radar in Biblical times. The Laws of Leviticus prescribe a massive redistribution of wealth every 50 years by canceling people’s debts and restoring property to original owners, yet many Christians are convinced—right or wrong— that justice for the poor is a matter of individual charity alone, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is duped by the devil. And while we’re talking about what’s Biblical and what’s not Biblical, why isn’t anyone suggesting that America as a nation love its enemies and turn the other cheek?

Come to think of it, maybe my pastor is right for refusing to use the power of the pulpit to trumpet a political agenda. I live in San Juan County, New Mexico, a place where the average evangelical pastor is about 20 degrees to the right of Rush Limbaugh, yet at Sunrise Christian Church; I’ve never heard a sermon that could be misconstrued as a cleverly disguised political endorsement—and the congregation is better off for it.

Because my pastor refuses to drag the church into the bitter divides of the culture war, there exists a wide diversity of political and theological persuasions within the congregation. People can walk into church and feel genuinely welcomed as they are, without having to conform to some mind-numbing group think. As a member of the worship team, I look out into the congregation every Sunday and see people with vastly different political, cultural, and theological beliefs, all worshiping God. It’s refreshing!

Pastor David, even though I tease you with my Talking Tom app, telling you that neutrality always benefits the oppressor and never the oppressed, the reality is I’m glad that you’ve created an atmosphere at the church where nothing is more important than Jesus Christ and him crucified. As you know, my wife and I and our two boys are moving to Albuquerque this year. Thank you for being there when we needed it the most.

We’re really going to miss you.

Bible story of the week: Mark 1:38-45

I'm adding a new feature to Deep Thoughts called "Bible story of the week." Hopefully, I'll be able to post one a week. I've asked my good friend Regina Manley to do the first one. Notice the words in bold. Those are the questions Regina would like for you to reflect/comment on----Aaron

By Regina Manley

Near the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry, he tells his disciples that he wants to visit the villages of Galilee and preach the Gospel stating, “That is why I have come.” (See Mark 1:38). After preaching in some synagogues and casting out demons, a leper meets Jesus along the way. The leper kneels right at Jesus’ feet begging for healing saying, “If you are willing, you can make me clean!” Jesus not only heals the man, but first he does the unthinkable. The next verse says, “Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and TOUCHED THE MAN. ‘I am willing!’ he said. ‘Be clean.’” The leper is immediately healed.

Then comes the another surprise, verses 43 and 44: “Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning; ‘See that you don’t tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.”

This man had other plans, though, verse 45: “Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.”

Jesus’ compassionate touch breaks centuries of “proper Jewish protocol” toward lepers who, as outcasts were commanded to wear torn clothing and shout “Unclean!” lest anyone be made unclean by actually touching them. Are followers of Jesus still shocking the world today with out- of- the- box responses of love? I’d love to hear your first-hand (or second-hand ;-) accounts.

And what do you think about that STRONG warning NOT TO TELL anyone but the priest? Wouldn’t that be hard not to tell anyone? Why do you think it was so important to Jesus that the priest should be the first to hear about this miracle?

In the end, the leper, who was isolated from society, had the freedom to go anywhere, whereas Jesus was limited to the “lonely places.” Have you experienced Jesus trading places with you? If so, let’s find ways to step up to his example of radical love.

Are miracles real?

I first saw Craig S. Keener in 1999 at a debate on women in ministry at Dallas Theological Seminary. Keener argued the Biblical egalitarianism perspective, which denies pre-ordained male domination/female submission roles and argues that women can serve in leadership roles in the life of the Church. I have Keener's IVP Bible Background Commentary (which even his opponent at the debate acknowledged as the best Bible background commentary out there) and I've also read Keener's book And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the New Testament, which explores the issue of divorce and remarriage from a New Testament standpoint. I was delighted to see Keener on the Huffington Post arguing for the credibility of miracles in the name of Jesus

.

Enjoy!

----Aaron

By Craig S. Keener

Many people today are familiar with miracle stories in the Bible -- the parting of a sea, water turned to wine, and, most frequently in the New Testament, healings, even of blindness, leprosy, and the reversal of recent death.

Yet it is not just people in the first century who have believed in miracles. Various polls peg U.S. belief in miracles at roughly 80 percent. One survey suggested that 73 percent of U.S. physicians believe in miracles, and 55 percent claim to have personally witnessed treatment results they consider miraculous.

Even more striking than the number of people who believe in miracles is the number who claim to have witnessed or experienced them. For example, a 2006 Pew Forum survey studied charismatic and Pentecostal Christians in 10 countries. From these 10 countries alone, the number of charismatic Christians who claim to have witnessed or experienced divine healing comes out to roughly 200 million people. This estimate was not, however, the most surprising finding of the survey. The same survey showed that more than one-third of Christians in these same countries who do not claim to be charismatic or Pentecostal report witnessing or experiencing divine healing.

And the reports in these countries appear to be merely the tip of the iceberg. The survey did not include China, where one report from the China Christian Council over a decade ago attributed roughly half of all new Christian conversions to "faith healing experiences." Another report from a different source in China suggested an even higher figure. Clearly many people around the world experience what they consider miracles, sometimes in life-changing ways.

What are we to make of such claims? At the very least, they testify that many people around the world today are experiencing cures in a context of deep religious faith. Numerous medical studies have shown that faith and faith communities provide a coping resource that often facilitates better health outcomes. A number of these global reports, however, exceed even our best current expectations for what "faith" can produce. In September 2010, Southern Medical Journal published an article showing that some people in Mozambique, tested before and after prayer, experienced significant recovery of hearing or eyesight. The Medical Bureau at Lourdes has long examined evidence for extraordinary recoveries.

Most stunning to me on a personal level were sincere eyewitness claims from people that I or my wife have long known and trusted, including everything from cures of blindness to restoration from apparent death. Sometimes the witnesses include doctors. In one case, the eyewitness was my mother-in-law, who reported that my sister-in-law was not breathing for three hours. During prayer, without available medical resources, my sister-in-law revived, and had fully recovered, without brain damage, by the next day. Similar reports, again sometimes from people I know or have interviewed personally, appear widely in Africa, Asia, Latin America and sometimes even North America. Many of these reports come from highly educated professionals.

That reports of extraordinary experiences are widespread is undeniable, but observers explain these experiences in various ways. Some reports stem from fraud or misdiagnosis, but vast numbers of cases cannot be explained this way. Some explanations may overlap; for example, most religious believers would allow that God can work through psychological causes. Some would not define such cures as miracles, however. The influential 18th-century philosopher David Hume, for example, defined miracles as "violations" of nature. Yet, this often-disputed definition cannot cover even many of the biblical miracles (for example, the Bible says that God used a strong wind to part the sea). Others define miracles simply as extraordinary divine action.

However miracles are defined, Hume's argument against them, which provides the traditional basis for skepticism about them, is now problematic. Hume questioned the possibility of having adequate testimony to affirm miracles, since virtually uniform human experience ruled them out. Today, however, when hundreds of millions of people from diverse cultures claim to have experienced miracles, it seems hardly courteous to presuppose a "uniform" human experience on the subject. If any of these experiences constituted a genuine miracle, Hume's argument against miracles, which in some circles has hardened into an uncontested consensus, would fail. Whatever one thinks about miracles, the long-held argument against them needs to be rethought.

While not everyone will agree regarding the causes of healing experiences, everyone must agree that they often do not happen. Sickness and injustice remain in the world. In the Gospels, miracles did not replace the kingdom that Jesus announced. Nevertheless, they were signs of hope to promise and invite us to work for a better future. This focus suggests the writers' conviction that God cares about people and about their suffering, and welcomes us to care about these also.

Source: Huffington Post

Does a person have to be a Christian to follow Jesus?

This article got me thinking about how God meets us where we are. Agree or disagree, the author gives us something to think about. Note: The author's title for this article is: Jesus Plus Nothing--Anyone Anywhere can Begin to Follow Jesus

---Aaron

By Tim Timmons

One of the top takeaways from my new book JESUS PLUS NOTHING stirs up so much emotional response. In other words, there is more heat than light at first. It’s tough enough to separate Jesus from Christian ownership. Now, this insight sounds even more foreign and out of bounds from what we’ve been taught. No matter how much evidence is offered or how many people are produced from non-Christian cultures who are followers of Jesus, it’s still stifling to the brain.

A little over a year ago about 60 of us participated in the Montana Awakening. We were spread all over the state, sharing the message of Jesus. I was teamed up with a Muslim friend of mine who loves Jesus and has been faithfully following Jesus for years. My friend is more articulate and genuine in his relationship with Jesus than most Christians I’ve known for years. On our first night in Montana, we were scheduled to speak along with a couple of others from Germany. I began, setting the stage for my Muslim friend’s testimony of how he had come to follow Jesus. Then he would speak and I closed out our session. Well-meaning Christians bombarded us afterward, vehemently and angrily arguing with my friend and me that it is impossible for a Muslim to be a true follower of Jesus. It was just unthinkable!

The same attitude is found among the early disciples in Luke 9, where John says to Jesus, “Master, we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” You see how it works? It’s unthinkable that anyone who is not one of us-one of our group-could possibly have a right connection with Jesus. In John 10 Jesus tries to instruct His disciples that He has other disciples who do not belong to His disciples’ same denomination. He says, “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.” Whoever Jesus is talking about, these other sheep are not from the same religious and cultural persuasion as His disciples. In the final book of the New Testament-Revelation-there is reference to “A great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne” of Jesus. (Revelation 7) NOTE the common theme of these passages. There is no reference to any certain religious group, but it’s clear that God is calling people from every nation, every tribe and every language group.

So, how is it possible for a non-Christian-a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew or agnostic-to come to the point of being a follower of Jesus and have a genuine saving relationship with Jesus? I’ve observed it in three stages. First-a person is drawn to Jesus because of His miracles, His teachings. At this stage a person is fascinated with the most amazing man, Jesus. He’s a great teacher and a great example. Second-after following Jesus for a period of time, a person begins to embrace Jesus’ principles and teachings. The principles begin to make more and more sense, so the person who has merely been fascinated with Jesus now begins to take Jesus seriously. Third-after continuing to follow Jesus and embrace His teachings and principles, this is when Jesus begins to transform a person’s life. If an internal change or conversion is going to take place, then it will happen at this level of progression.

This progression is perfectly illustrated in Jesus’ encounter with Peter at Caesarea Philippi. Jesus asked, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter answers by saying, “You are God’s Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus strokes Peter for giving such a good answer, but says, “Flesh and blood didn’t reveal that to you.” Only the Father could reveal this kind of thing to Peter. Only God can change a person’s heart. No amount of teachings or belief systems can do this. Here’s the way I see it. You don’t have to believe Jesus is the Son of God to begin to follow Jesus. The disciples didn’t! In fact, they weren’t even genuine “believers”, until later. It took them over three years of following Jesus daily for God, the Father, to change their hearts and minds of faith. When a person begins to follow Jesus, he is set up perfectly to have his heart totally converted-transformed by God Himself. We’ve seen this happen in every major culture of the world. They first are attracted to Jesus as a great teacher or example and later Jesus apprehends their hearts. One more thing. You don’t have to be a Christian to be a follower of Jesus either. Here’s the point! Anyone anywhere can begin to follow Jesus.

Source: http://www.carlmedearis.com/blog/2012/01/jesus-plus-nothing/

Jesus forbids sectarianism!

By Aaron D. Taylor

The term evangelical Christian and I share a love/hate relationship.

On the one hand, I believe in the good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection and desire to share the implications of this news with others. The problem is that for most people in America, the term evangelical Christian is loaded with political undertones, so unless I’m in a situation where calling myself an evangelical Christian gives me greater influence to work towards peace and justice in the political sphere, I usually drop the evangelical part, except when I’m in Muslim countries where the word Christian means “people that drink, party, and fornicate.”

I’ve also tried calling myself a “follower of Jesus”, but most of the time I’m not very good at following Jesus, so now I’m thinking I should just say, “My name is Aaron Taylor….And I’m a guy trying to follow Jesus.”

How’s that for a business card?

As a guy trying to follow Jesus, the four gospels are like earth, wind, fire, and water. My spiritual life would be non-existent without them.

I’d have a hard time choosing a favorite between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but if I absolutely had to choose; I’d choose Luke. Had it not been for Luke, terms like the “good Samaritan” and the “prodigal son” would have never made it into popular culture.

In Luke are also found the two- to- three verse stories that often get over looked. Stories such as this one:

“Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side.” (Luke 9:49-50)

It would be easy to look at this story and condemn John for his narrow-mindedness, but let’s look at things from John’s perspective. Jesus had already handpicked his 12 disciples at this point, and this guy wasn’t one of them.

Who does this guy think he is, casting out demons in Jesus name without bothering to get his permission first? I mean, didn’t Jesus make it clear that his organization had a chain of command that people had to go through to get to him?

In John’s mind, the power structure that Jesus had ordained looked something like this:

Jesus

The 12 Apostles

Everyone else

Excuse me Mr. Demon-caster-outer, but if you want to be in Jesus’ in crowd, you have to go through us. We’re the true followers of Jesus. So either move aside, or join our group. Those are your two options. You’re either with us or against us….Because Jesus is one of us.

Except that Jesus isn’t.

Fast-forward a couple thousand years and my how things have not changed! We still have thousands of groups claiming that they’re the true followers of Jesus.

Growing up charismatic, I knew that the Baptists weren’t as spiritual as we were because they didn’t speak in tongues, just like the Baptists knew that most Catholics probably aren’t saved because they’ve never prayed the “sinner’s prayer.”

Some groups believe that a Christian can serve in the military; others believe that Jesus categorically rejects violence in every circumstance. Some Christians are gay-affirming; others are … well, obviously not.

With all the different groups out there claiming to follow Jesus, how do we know which ones Jesus would claim as his own?

Is it possible that Jesus would claim both liturgical Christians and free-wheeling holy roller Christians?

What about liberal Christians and conservative Christians? Is the tent that Jesus pitches big enough to include people like Dorothy Day and Jerry Falwell?

I’m 33 years old, and I’ve been following Jesus — or should I say trying to follow Jesus — for as long as I can remember. If there’s one thing that I’ve learned after all these years, it’s that as soon as I think that my friends and I have a corner on Jesus, Jesus reminds me that He’s bigger than any organization, doctrine, or philosophical system that I can wrap my brain around.

The more that I follow Jesus, the bigger my world should get.

I think that’s what Jesus was trying to tell John. Jesus is fine with his followers gathering together into groups of like-minded believers helping each other along in their spiritual journeys. That’s necessary and good. The problem is when groups of people claim Jesus as their exclusive possession, as if any one group has a monopoly on Jesus. That’s called sectarianism, and Jesus explicitly forbids it.

If I can’t see Jesus at work in the lives of people that don’t look, talk, or think the way that I do, then I’m the one with the problem, not Jesus. I don’t own Jesus.

The question is: Does Jesus own me?

Disposable

By David LeMonnier

In 2001 I attended a church which lost its pastor. The pastor had an affair and, according to the less than credible grape vine, he had even brought a gun into the church office at one point. It was a surreal turn of events in the church. He was an excellent speaker, a hard worker & an encouraging man. I looked up to him as a spiritual parent. Our church which was 1,200 people and growing, which had just bought some land to build a new facility, soon dwindled down to nothing. I went to college & now I don’t know anyone from that time who still attends. I can’t say we saw it coming, but lately I wonder if all the warning signs were in front of us. After all, my story is the typical story for so many churches. The pastor is a success and then he falls, and with him soon follows the church.

Now, we all know the typical answers to this typical story. The pastor needs to guard himself. He needs to take the necessary precautions. Churches should be more careful of who they hire. Churches shouldn’t be built around a man, but Jesus. But now I am a pastor. I have been a pastor of a church that fell apart and a church now that is growing. And despite all the things my pastor did wrong, I cannot help but feel sympathy for him and wonder whether everything was his fault?

In our American society we value rugged individualism, which in my life has meant we criticize everyone who is successful and let everyone who fails burn. The only unity we experience is when we have a common enemy, not when we’re for a common cause. We experience this “unity” in politics. So long as a man is against our enemy, he is useful to our party. The moment he strays from the path we expect from him, he is out like yesterday’s news.

In the church pastors experience this same “unity.” A pastor is only good to us so long as he does not fail, does not compromise and does not disagree with the majority of his congregation. The moment he does any and all of these things (and all pastors can and will) he and his family are without financial support and a church. Never mind the fact the pastor has to accept this behavior from the congregation. The congregation gets a different standard. The pastor has to “suck it up and deal with it” while the church member can live without such accountability. The member can quit “paying the preacher” or even go to another church where the pastor (at that time) “agrees more with them.” The pastor is a commodity one picks out of luxury, not a brother.

The pastor cannot share his weaknesses with the church, at least not any major ones. The church allows for simple sins in a pastor like “working too much” or gossiping. But if a pastor struggles with pornography or anger or divorce he is without a job. I am sure many church members are glad their companies don’t treat them as they treat their ministers.

Church members expect their ministers to listen to “their” concerns. By “their” concerns I mean the sins of the people they don’t like. “The pastor needs to know Mike sinned.” “The pastor needs to know about Betty’s bad attitude.” But the pastor is not allowed to voice his concerns for the spiritual well-being of those who complain to him. He is to be seen, but not heard.

All of what I mentioned is a part of the job for pastors. No one should go into the ministry without expecting to encounter these problems. If you aren’t willing to minister in spite of these things then you aren’t ready to serve. The enemy is as much in the body of Christ as outside of it. Pastors also must take the necessary precautions to avoid temptation and strive to develop their personal character. We are not masters of our trade but students of THE Master. At the same time, though, is it any wonder less people are going into the ministry and staying in the ministry? After all, with work like this who would want to? The church under pays, under values and under “loves” those who serve it.

And with this considered, I wonder whether pastors who fail are really to blame? Granted everyone is responsible for their sins. The devil can’t make us do anything; he can only use the footholds we provide him. We will all be judged for what we’ve done and each be punished for what we’re responsible for. But have we considered who we’re responsible for? Obviously the pastor is responsible for the flock, but who is responsible for the pastor? Might it be a reason so many in church leadership fail is because the church forgets its responsibility to him, not the other way around?

Perhaps the pastor does not share his sin because there is no one safe to confide in and in turn his sin consumes him to the point he can no longer lead. Maybe he is afraid to speak the truth because his family is held financially hostage by the church and those threatening to leave. Maybe he is depressed having put so much thought and prayer into his words and having them fall on deaf ears. Maybe he is depressed because he puts so much work into people only to be forgotten on the anniversary of his arrival, birthday or Pastor Appreciation Month. Or maybe he is tired and stressed from trying to satisfy his family and church expectations feeling obligated to God to take care of them both. Maybe he is afraid to ask for help because he has been taught through experience there is no help for him?

Are pastors struggling because they’re alone, never considering anyone a friend out of fear of rejection? Are pastors having affairs because they have no companionship or because they want to have control over something in their life? Are they quitting the ministry because of the guilt they feel for neglecting their family or because of the guilt they feel for falling short of what is expected of them in churches?

Perhaps the most important question we should consider is what are we going to do about it? Will we make the church safe for pastors? Will we be aware of their spiritual health and heal their wounds? Will we be united to our pastors as a family of Christ? Or will we remain disposable?

P.S. I read this article to my wife and she is concerned about who will read this. But should an article like this cause her anxiety or hope? It is up to the church to decide.

Incarnational Churches: Seeking the Peace of the City--Rick Love

I thought I'd share something from my good friend Rick Love at Peace Catalyst.

My friend Pastor Jay Pathak was talking to the mayor of Arvada and wanted to know his vision for the city. After sharing a number of things, the mayor confessed, “I guess I want people to be good neighbors.” Jay assured the mayor that he could help with that one! Since then, Jay has mobilized and worked with more than fifty other churches in Colorado to encourage people to “rediscover the art of neighboring.” They are now taking the love commandment seriously by pursuing relationships with their neighbors.



Jay’s church, the Mile High Vineyard, is one of many churches following Jesus into the marketplace and into the neighborhoods of their city. They illustrate one of the most profound and important things God is doing in the world today: calling his church to be incarnational (also described as “missional”). So what is an incarnational church?



The easiest way to understand what I mean by "incarnational church" is to compare two approaches: the incarnational approach and the attractional approach. In the attractional method, the goal is to attract attendees. Churches want to get people to attend service on Sunday. By contrast, the incarnational church focuses on incarnating the gospel at work and with neighbors from Monday through Saturday. The attractional church’s primary emphasis is “come,” whereas the incarnational church’s primary emphasis is “go!” The attractional church focuses on buildings and professional clergy, while the incarnational church focuses on laity serving in the marketplace.



A wise reader will discern two things about what I just wrote. First, in order to make my point, I exaggerated. I made my comparison of the two approaches too black and white. Second, both approaches are good, and we need both. The reality is that every church is both attractional and incarnational at some level. But I see an imbalance in the church. We are really good at the attractional approach, but not so good at the incarnational. In this blog I want to address the importance of being incarnational.

To continue reading this entry: click here!

Review of Alone with a Jihadist

Below is a review of my book Alone with a Jihadist from Regina Manley:

Alone with a Jihadist is a riveting, must read for any Christian who has the courage to reexamine Jesus’ commands and example regarding violence. Raised in a Pentecostal and conservative Christian environment, Taylor’s journey began after 7 hours of dialog with a radical Muslim, Khalid Kelly. The following excerpts should wet your appetite:


“What our nation lacks at this crucial juncture in our history is creative thinking, and the reason why we lack creative thinking is because of our unwavering faith in the myth of redemptive violence, especially in the Church.” P172


The reason why both Jesus and Paul (Romans 12:14-21, I Thessalonians 5:15) forbade Christians to use the sword is because when Christians use the sword, we undermine our unique calling to be a prophetic people that embody the reality of the age to come (Hebrews 6:5). … People won’t be ruling over each other, but serving each other in self-sacrificial love—like Jesus did. When Jesus preached that the Kingdom of God is at hand, He was calling forth a people from the north, the south, the east, and the west to live in the reality of the age to come in the here and now. P189

Thank you Regina!

A Christmas greeting from a Saudi Arabian Muslim

I received this in my inbox today.

Thought my might enjoy reading about what Jesus means to a Saudi Arabian/American Muslim.

Enjoy!

Friends,
Yesterday December 24, 2011 a friend and a brother sent me his wish for a Merry Christmas and said: “I hope today you have been able in some way to celebrate the life we have in Christ!”. This led me to think about what celebrating the birth of Jesus truly means to me. This early morning, I woke up as usual at 5.30 A.M. to perform my morning prayer and was sitting after prayers thinking and suddenly, I felt a surge of bless flowing through me and the meaning of celebrating Jesus birth became clear in my heart and in my mind. The urge to write to all of you sharing these wonderful feelings I have is out of love to all of you. In fact this whole thing is about love.

When I was sixteen of age, I observed that all we human beings do including love and friendship is originated in a basic instinct to preserve the species. Later, I observed that from there we moved into self glorification of our particular race. This certainly was not very flattering to our human race. But that is truly how I felt. Later, I learned that there must be a creator. My observation to His universe taught me that He deeply cares about me and I found myself surrendering myself to His care. This put me on one side of the fence and put those that did not surrender on the other side. Islam that I learned at that time had something missing. My teachers were mostly Islamocentrics. They taught me that Muslims are the only saved people. All others are doomed. They were self glorifying themselves and those like them. While this was not racial per say, still it added another dimension to my understanding i.e. people self glorify themselves based on many elements of race, tribe, party or even religion.

When I met Jesus I observed that for the first time someone is not motivated in his behavior by ego or egotistical motives. He is teaching that we are all children of God and He loves us all equally. He is teaching not only to love those that you call your people or those that belong to your religion but to love even your enemies. He teaches that if you want to lead you have to serve, if you want to be the first you have to be the last and if you want life you have to give up life. His own life completed what was missing in my own understanding. He is the bridge that connected me to the purpose God created me for. To love Him and to serve others. Jesus is a man that had an exceptional miraculous birth, an exceptional miraculous life and exceptional miraculous death and resurrection by the will of God.

I was sharing this with my daughter minutes after I felt it and she said but dad today might not be his real birthday. I said, If you follow his teachings, you will be celebrating his birth every day.
Blessings,
Safi

Would Jesus Occupy Wall Street?

A common technique for opinion writers is to pose a question in the title of their articles, and then spoon-feed the answer to their readers. This isn’t one of those articles. I ask the question of whether Jesus would be on the streets with the Occupy Wall Street protestors because a.) I think it’s a question worth asking b.) I don’t know the answer and c.) I genuinely would like to hear what other people think on the matter.

First, a disclaimer: I realize the question What-Would-Jesus-Do is a controversial one. Not everybody accepts the premise that we can know with certainty what Jesus would do in hypothetical situations today. It’s also true that all of us are unique. The way that Jesus might life his life through one person might be different than how he might live his life through another. Still, as followers of Jesus, I think it helps from time to time to evaluate our actions based on the model of Jesus, and the best way to tackle the question of what would Jesus do is to ask what did Jesus do.

That’s where things get tricky.

An argument for why Jesus might be out on the streets today joining the protesters is that Jesus was an activist for the poor in his day. When Jesus cleansed the temple, he wasn’t merely performing a religious act. The cleansing of the temple was highly political. The temple was the seat of religious, economic, and political power for Jews in Jesus’ day. Jesus was mad as hell at the fleecing of the poor by the moneychangers and the exclusion of the Gentiles (read: economic injustice and institutionalized racism). Had newspapers been around back then, Jesus would have landed on the front page of the Jerusalem Times, and the editorialists would have lambasted him for disorderly conduct. Jesus literally threw people out of the temple, destroyed tables, and prevented people from carrying goods through the temple (Mark 11: 15-16). What would Fox News and CNN call that today? At the very least, they would label him an activist, or probably something worse.

Then there’s Zacchaeus.

First century Jews would have thought of Zacchaeus in much the same way as a lot of people today think of Wall Street executives and hedge fund managers. Zacchaeus was a chief among the tax collectors, and a very rich man. He obtained his wealth by collaborating with the imperialist Roman occupiers at the expense of his own people. He benefited from a system that lavished an exorbitant amount of wealth on a few at the expense of everyone else. And how did Jesus treat him? Jesus never camped outside his office in an effort to shame him. Instead he invites himself over for dinner. By extending his hand of friendship to Zacchaeus, Jesus did the opposite of what the crowd wanted him to do. The crowd couldn’t get over the fact that Jesus was going to eat in the home of “a sinner.” They were so focused on Zacchaeus’s sins; they forgot that they were sinners too.

As I read the blogs and watch the news about what’s happening in New York and around the country, I can’t help but wonder: If Jesus were walking the streets of New York today, would he be a rabble-rouser activist like he was at the temple, or would he walk up to the CEO of Goldman Sachs and give him a hug? I don’t see how a person can be an angry activist and a friend of aristocrats at the same time, but that’s just me. Regardless of where you land on this matter, here’s a sentiment I think we can all agree with:

Just when I think I have Jesus figured out, he throws another curveball.

Do Muslims Who Follow Jesus Have to Stop Being Muslims?

My friend Pastor Tim O'Brien sent this to me today. I think it's worth reading:


For a long while I have wrestled with the question of whether a Muslim can be a worshipper of Jesus and remain culturally a Muslim. The question is also being considered by Christian leaders and missionaries the world over. Let me explain why.

When a Muslim man in a predominantly Muslim society decides to serve Jesus as Lord, he is typically ostracized from his family and community. Often these converts are collected by missionaries into Christian communities made up of other converts from
Islam. The only problem is that they can no longer bear fruit within their original sphere of influence.

To be a follower of Jesus and remain culturally a Muslim seems to be a viable option. After all, Islam is not just a religion,
but a culture with many redeeming values. For instance, Muslims mostly abstain from alcohol and pornography, abhor abortion, and are family oriented.

One Muslim man from Thailand decided to follow Jesus. He renounced his Muslim roots and left his family. Later, however,
according to him, the Holy Spirit convicted him and he went back and apologized to his family.

Now he worships Jesus as a Muslim. While he ministers to his Muslim friends he shares that the prophet Mohammad encouraged the reading of the Gospels. This is his open door to conduct Bible studies with interested Muslims.

The continuing story of this man is that thousands of Muslims have accepted Jesus this way. This is a movement that we will possibly be hearing about in the news in the days to come. From this movement and other efforts across the world, I believe some clear answers for the Muslim world will come to light.

One of the issues, of course, is how does one reconcile some of the things the Qur’an has to say with worshipping Jesus as God. At some points the Qur’an is helpful, standing by the virgin birth and sinless life of Jesus, calling Jesus savior, Word, and Spirit. At other points it can confuse the issues and even be all out contradictory to the Bible.

Some of those contradictions, however, are not the kind that would impact the
salvation message. We have to discern what’s really important. For instance, when I share with Muslims, I don’t make it a point to tell them that I don’t believe Mohammed was a prophet. What’s the point?

Lastly, the title Christian is at issue. Is it OK to worship Jesus and not call yourself a Christian? For some this is a point of contention, but consider some things. The earliest disciples of Jesus did not call themselves Christians. They were called Christians by others. In fact, the word “Christian” only appears in the Bible 3 times. “Christian” was a derogatory term meaning “little messiahs” or “little
christs.”

Peter says, “If you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.” In this context, a proper stance for
a Muslim believer might be, “I call myself a Muslim who worships Jesus, but if you call me a Christian, I will not be ashamed.” Some may disagree, but remember that we are not trying to get people to join our religion, we are inviting every
nation, tribe and tongue to make Jesus Lord.


By Tim O'Brien
Rock of Ages Church
Prepared for Daily Guide 19 May 06 edition

Was the woman at the well promiscuous?

Over the past several months, I've been working on a book that I've been "ghost-writing" for an up and coming Christian author. In one of the chapters, I wanted to make the point that Jesus was elusive about his identity with people, "unless of course, you were a promiscuous Samaritan woman." Point being that Jesus had a funny habit of preferring the sinful outcast over and against the rich, the powerful, and the pious. I think the point is still valid, but I'm wondering if I've overstated my case by calling the woman at the well a "promiscuous Samaritan woman." Do we really know that she was promiscuous? Most authors and preachers I know assume that she was, but I recently read an article entitled Misogyny, Moralism, and the Woman at the well that has challenged that assumption.

So what do you think?

Jesus said to the woman, "You've had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband."

What makes us think she was promiscuous?

Jesus said she's had five husbands, not five lovers.

And the fact that she was with a man that was not her husband? As the author of the article points out, she could have been in a Levirate marriage, which was an arrangement that if a woman's husband died without a male heir, she was obligated to "marry" her husband's brother to produce a male heir. So the husband's brother was sort of like a "husband", but not really.

The author's point is that too often we read the Bible through misogynistic glasses, and sometimes those misogynistic glasses lead us to read passages with moralistic assumptions that miss the point. His point could very well be true, but the point that I took away from the article was much more mundane: How often am I careless about my assumptions period? How often do I read something into the Scriptures that's simply not there?

So what do you think? Was the woman at the well promiscuous, as tradition says? Or could the point of the story be that Jesus gives dignity to people despite their low social status? What are the spiritual truths of the story that don't depend on the interpretation that the woman at the well was promiscuous? Might the story be more meaningful without that assumption?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

You can read the story of the woman at the well here:

Thank you for the help.

Matthew's Mad Men

Dorothy is an excellent Bible teacher that I trust and respect. She taught me how to "dig for treasures" in the simple stories of the Bible. Here is an example of us digging together in our latest e-mail exchange:

Dorothy,

I've been thinking about a story found in Matthew 8:28-34.

In the story, Jesus heals two demon possessed men. The demons ask Jesus to permit them to go into the herd of swine. Jesus says "go" and the herd ran violently down the steep place and perished in the sea. Those who kept the swine fled, told everyone in the city what happened, including what happened to the two men, and the WHOLE CITY begged Jesus to depart from their region.

Here's what I've been thinking about. I want to know if you think that I'm reading too much into the story or if my observations are ACTUALLY IN the story?

Doesn't it seem odd to you that Jesus would allow an entire herd of swine to perish to heal just two men? I mean, didn't people's livelihood depend on those swine? It seems that Jesus was willing to sacrifice another person's livelihood, or at the very least, short term profit to heal two men that would have been at the very bottom of the rung in society.

Is there a message here that people are more important than profit?

If I'm on the right track with this story, then what does this story tell us about how SOCIETY treats the least of these? At the end of the story, the WHOLE CITY comes out to beg Jesus to depart from their region. The people in the city had a choice, but it seems that they put their economic well-being ahead of the two men at the bottom of the rung.

So what might this story say to business owners, or political leaders? Could this story actually be teaching us that Jesus puts a priority on the poor and the outcast over the economic well-being of the business class?

I'd love to hear your insights.

Aaron

Dorothy's Response:

Aaron,

I see and agree with your observations and your applications. There is a ton of treasure in this story

Ok. let's kick it up a notch and view just a few!

I think I just saw some things. To get there, it helps me to understand that aspect of the story to know that the city of Gadera was maybe 8 miles inland from the Sea of Galilee, on the East side Jordan and the inhabitants were not Jews, they were Greeks. (Put in the introduction as it is in the Bible, well the "Greek" info maybe not.)

So?

Yes Jesus took away their livelihood, so your obs-apps work, but also....

What were swine to Jews and where did that belief come from? (put in intro)

Wow! What had these keepers of the swine, these Gaderans, non-Jews just seen that day?
Do you see any part of what they had seen being deniable? What do you see there, as to what kinds of activity Jesus had been involved there?

Who all saw what Jesus did?
When they saw, what did they choose to do?
I am thinking, what other choices could they have made?

Also who did these amazing feats?
Do we know if anyone else been able to cure the two "crazy" men?
What had those crazy man been consigned to and were the locals affected in any way?
How do you see Jesus treat the crazy men?
Is it possible that Jesus' treat of the men can that show us anything about Jesus?

What other ways might Jesus have responded to the demons' request?
Is it possible that what Jesus did with the demons can show us anything?, maybe multiple anythings!

Could what Jesus did have sent any messages to the Gaderens?
I wonder? Could Jesus' actions indicate any positive interest in the Gadarenes?

Who all saw these activities and decisions that day. Impact on each?

Just thoughts

Dorothy

Has anything in this exchange pricked your thinking regarding this story?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Thinking about the Kingdom

Not getting much sleep these days. Wondering if I'll ever get to sleep through the night again. I've heard that having small children changes your life. Consider that confirmed. So what's been going on in my sleepless head? Been thinking about the Kingdom. You know, the one that Jesus talked about? The one that's not supposed to be of this world? What exactly is the Kingdom of God?

For many, the Kingdom of God is an inward spiritual condition, the joy and peace that transcends circumstances. There's some Biblical justification for this, as Paul says, "The Kingdom of God isn't eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17) But is an inward spiritual condition all that the kingdom represents? After all, I've met some pretty joyful and peaceful Buddhists over the years. While I'm certainly happy for people that find joy and peace through whatever faith tradition or philosophy that helps them get through life, Jesus seemed to think that He was the only one qualified to reveal the nature of the Kingdom to the world. While it may be fashionable to put Jesus on par with other philosophers and religious leaders, Jesus didn't leave a whole lot of wiggle-room for competitors when He said things like, "All things have been handed over to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him" (Matthew 11:27).

For others, the Kingdom of God is a set of moral and ethical principles designed to help people get along and to restore what is broken in our world. In this view, the Kingdom of God is good news for everyone because it transcends religious distinctions. This also carries a grain of truth. If I as a follower of Jesus decide to make the Sermon on the Mount the moral foundation of my life, that's good news for my Muslim neighbor, Buddhist neighbor, Hindu neighbor, and non-religious neighbor as well. So when the Kingdom of God is in operation, it's good news not just for people that call themselves Christians, but for people of all faiths. And, of course, it's also true that when people of other faiths follow the teachings of Jesus, whether consciously or unconsciously, everyone benefits.

Still, Jesus walked around like He owned the Kingdom. He said My Kingdom is not of this world. So while I respect people that decide to live virtuous lives based on their philosophy or faith tradition, it makes sense that only that which is done in Jesus' name can rightly be called the Kingdom, at least in the Biblical sense of the word. So the real question is, when Jesus announced the Kingdom of God, what might that have meant to His Jewish listeners?

Now I think we're getting somewhere. I was reading the Book of Daniel the other day. Daniel prophesied to the King of Nebuchadnezzar that his empire would be the first of four great empires, and that at some point during the fourth empire, a new Kingdom made not with hands would arise that would crush all remaining Kingdoms (Daniel 2:44). The Jews would have certainly known that the Roman Empire was the fourth great empire that Daniel prophesied about, so they must have been looking for someone that fit the following description:

"I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed" (Daniel 7:13-14).

So when Jesus walked around calling Himself the Son of Man and talking about His Kingdom not being of this world, He was essentially telling His Jewish audience, "Remember the prophecies of old? They're talking about me! I'm the one you've read about that's going to take over the planet and crush the world's Kingdoms. Follow me."

Sometimes I think we forget that the Kingdom of God is about a real King with a real domain with real citizens. So my question is, how does understanding the Jewish context of the Kingdom of God help us understand the nature of Jesus and His mission? I'm sure it must have been a shock that the long-awaited King acted more like a slave than a King, which is probably why a lot of people rejected Jesus and His claims, so what do we make of the earth shattering Kingdom prophesied in Daniel? Perhaps more importantly, how should believers in Jesus relate to existing earthly Kingdoms in light of the fact that we serve a King that seems more interested in "crushing" and "consuming" earthly kingdoms (Daniel 2:44)--than fixing them?

Discuss!