My Questions About American Religion #8 - What is the Gospel?

This word "Gospel" has been tossed around in the Christian world for a long time. It has taken on several nuances over the years that make it hard to define.

When a person shares a salvation message, they are often heard saying that they were sharing the Gospel. And this ranges all over the spectrum of how we share the salvation message. If I walk up to someone and ask them if they died tonight would they go to heaven, then I am sharing the Gospel.

When I talk about the crucifixion, I am sharing the Gospel. When I walk someone through a set of steps (which is totally different from church to church) and say "This is how you get saved." (which if that is true then someone is right and someone is wrong and there are a lot of deceived people out there), this is called sharing the Gospel.

For some, anytime that I talk about Jesus, I am sharing the Gospel because I am talking from the "Gospels."

For some, anytime that I am acting like a Christian in front of someone I am sharing the Gospel. And so all the Gospel is simply amounts to lifestyle choices.

But there is a verse that haunts me. Paul in his writing to the Galatian Church says that if an angel of the Lord or even if they themselves come to them preaching another Gospel other than the one they had already received, that person preaching would be eternally condemned. Even an Angel!

The hard part is that all these examples of how we label the Gospel sound different to me. And I think it would do us well go simply go back to the text and let it speak what it speaks and then adapt to that. So let's define the the Gospel and go from there...

First, the word Gospel means "good news." it is the greek word euangelion and it is not a uniquely religious term. Caesar sent out a euangelion when he became emperor. A bearer of Good News to the empire. Zeus was called the bearer of Good News and Hermes was called the bringer of Good News. Paul uses a play on this in Acts 13.

So we need to know that Good News and Gospel are synonymous and it is a message that is supposed to bring hope to all mankind.

But what message actually is the good news? What message actually is the gospel? Let's take a brief look...

Matthew 4:23 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.

Matthew 9:35 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness.

Mark 1:14-15 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!”

Luke 4:42-43 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

At daybreak Jesus went out to a solitary place. The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving them. But he said, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.”

Luke 8:1 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him,

Luke 16:16 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.

Acts 8:12 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

So critical for us to get this!!! When Jesus was killed, what was the charge? That He was a king. Why? Because His message was all about the Kingdom. And without running too far down this trail, this was also the message of the New Testament writers as well.

So why does this matter?  I am glad you asked!!!

Again, people pick up a larger story based on how and what you say. When your Gospel is a salvation message, it becomes about getting people "in" and making them "okay" and finding that saved/unsaved line and getting them across. Well, once that happens, we have no more to talk about. We have no more leverage to get people to grow up and guess what it produces... baby Christians. And what is the church full of?

But they have done what they needed to do in order to get where they needed to get. They are "in" and that is enough. So we can preach all we want to about people growing up in their faith or getting involved or investing in others, but there is not a single reason other than guilt to get people to actually do it. and so churches have become guilt masters.

But what if the problem with churches full of immature believers isn't that they are selfish, it is that our "Gospel" isn't quite the same Gospel of Jesus? What if there is a better Gospel?

I wold suggest that the GOSPEL is not ONLY a salvation message.  While it no doubt contains a salvation message, the Gospel is an invitation to live in a Kingdom that is not of this world. As Dwight Pryor says, it is a power at work in our midst. The Kingdom and how we can live in it with power and freedom - THAT is the Gospel. That is the good news. And that is what we should be preaching!!!

So the next question is what is the Kingdom? Well, Jesus tells 38 parables that we have recorded. 20 of them directly say that the Kingdom is like ... So here is our task! To find the principles Jesus up held and taught and inviting people to live with these guiding principles in their lives. And the Good News is that we have a God who has given us the power to do just that. And the Good News is that when we live in this way, we are free. And the Good News is that when we live in this way we have real Peace. And the Good News is that as we live in this way, we get closer and closer in our knowing of God and our created purpose. And we are more free and more whole - and that is what God cares about. And THAT is good news!

My Questions About American Religion #7 - Who are we?

This one is at the core of my being.  If I had one opportunity to give you one message, this would be the one I would share.  And as usual, it comes with some ground work...

There is a concept in the Jewish culture that I want to unpack for us here... the role of the firstborn, or in Hebrew - the behor.

The behor has a special role in the whole family.  It is the firstborn son, and he is responsible for some things that the rest of the children are not. First, he is responsible for carrying the family's values to the world. Second, he is responsible for instilling those values in the other children and making sure they uphold those values as they go out into the world. He is able to communicate and convey those values in ways that mom and dad just simply cannot. Third, he is responsible for taking care of mom and dad when they are old. Fourth, he gets 80% of the inheritance.  The other children split the other 20%.

My wife and I recently took a trip to Israel. And like most folks that go there, especially for the first time, we took about a million pictures. Some folks we know came to see the pictures and as we were sharing about this place and that photo, my son said, "oh, yeah. that is where 'this' happened or where 'that story' took place."

I have to admit, I was surprised and impressed.  I said, "Wow! that is pretty amazing that you remember all that."

He said, "I have to know all this, I am the behor!"

I choked a little. He gets it. He sees and is owning his responsibility to transfer our family legacy to the rest of the family.

There is an interesting Law in Torah that makes no sense at all unless you understand how significant this idea is to the Jewish family.

Deuteronomy 21:15-16 - "If a man has 2 wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love."

HUH?!?!?!? (I find myself saying that a lot lately) There are so many questions about this law. First, 2 wives? Second, I am having children with the one I do not love? How is that working out? Third, my children aren't just my children? Who their mom is decides my preference for them? ... I am sure your list could go on from here.

This should immediately make us think of a story from earlier in the text. And from a Jewish perspective, that is the point.

Jacob had 2 wives: Leah and Rachel. Rachel he loved and Leah he did not love. But Leah is having children and Rachel is not. Ruben becomes the firstborn son. And he should become the behor of the family.

Now think about this. The behor gets double portion in everything. when the other kids have one coat, the behor gets 2. So, when Rachel finally has a son - Joseph - and Jacob sees that, what does he do? He gives Jacob a second coat. What is Jacob saying? Joseph is the behor!

I wonder how would you feel if you were put in Ruben's position? Resentful? At least! And ultimately we see him try to kill Joseph.  And Joseph is thrown into a pit, sold into slavery, thrown in jail, forgotten.

Then the dramatic climax where the brothers are reunited (and it feels so good) =)

How is Joseph going to act? Like the real behor - Ruben? Or will he be the behor he was chosen to be all along?

He forgives. And in an instant we see 2 firstborns giving us an example of what it means to lead the family.

Fast forward 400 years. The children of Israel are getting ready to leave Egypt.  They kill the lambs, put blood all around the door, and walk through a bloody door symbolizing their new birth as the behor of all mankind for the Lord God almighty.  And they have a decision to make.  What kind of behor are they going to be? One that turns their back on their family when things get tough, or one that forgives? We have seen examples of both.

And God takes them to Mt. Sinai. And He says something there to them that is so precious.

Exodus 19:5-6 says, "Now if you obey me fully and keep my convenient, then out of all the nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation..."

As the behor of the nations, you will be a kingdom of priests.

We are given the same precious gift:

1 Peter 2:9 English Standard Version (ESV)

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

We now join the call of being a kingdom of priests for our God to the world. And that means something.  We have a responsibility.  We must uphold the responsibilities of the priest to the world.

The priest has essentially four responsibilities, but for the sake of space (that seems to be a theme in all this) we will focus on one - the Priest becomes the representation of their God to the world. Sounds an awful lot like a behor.

Which raises an interesting question that seems to be unrelated on the front end, but absolutely ties in on the back end - Why do we obey the rules?

Think about it. Why do you obey God? So He won't punish you? So He will approve of you? The only way to have these as motivations is to start your story in Genesis 3 (I told you this would keep coming up).

If we start your story in Genesis 1, we start with a God who is wholly enamored with us. He loves us fully and completely. no reservation, no condition - period. He cannot possibly love you more than He already does. You cannot earn God's love or make Him give you special privileges by obeying Him.

So then, why do we have to keep the rules?

Because we are the priests - the behor (The Scripture says that Jesus is the firstborn over all creation now, but that only serves to further my argument in that we are His representations to the world.). We are the ones who are responsible for giving the world an accurate picture of who our God is.

This is who we are: a Chose people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood. And we must tell the world an accurate story of who our God is.  I have said for a long time that if people could see God for who He really is, they would love Him.  How could they not? But a better question would be - how will they see Him? 

People try to come up with all kinds of explanations about who we are.  And it influences the Gospel they share (this will be tomorrow's post).  "We are all jacked up!" "We are a mess!" "We are sinners!" "We are all so unworthy!" 

While at some level these are all true (except for the unworthy part - that will be a post next week), they are not the story that God is telling in His Word. 

You are NEVER defined by your past, your mistakes, your shortcomings. You are a priest of the most high God. You are called and full of potential to bring the Kingdom of God crashing into earth. You are endowed with the power that only the Spirit of God provides to be greater in this world that anything that can be thrown at you.  You are more than a conqueror! You are a priest of the Most High God. You are chosen - on purpose, not by accident or chance. You are holy - set apart by a peculiar life of forgiveness in the midst of pain, generosity in the midst of takers, and love in the midst of other's selfishness. You are royalty.  And the One who holds all authority in heaven and on earth believes that you have what it takes to be JUST like Him.

You are the behor. Both special and noticed in God's eyes, and given a unique role in the rest of creation to tell an accurate story of a God who recklessly pursues us and will stop at nothing to get you to understand that He wants you to realize your FULL created potential and that you are FULL of created potential because He put it in you.

Try not to smile when you realize that the creator of the universe sees you as all these things and so much more. Oh, and by the way, when you and God disagree about who you are, He is right - always.

May you be full of the amazing story of God to the point that it bleeds out your pores and people are smeared with the Grace of God simply because they bumped into you.

My Questions About American Religion #6 - What should we know about the people who wrote the Bible?

Okay, sorry this one took so long to get to.  I needed some verification on a few things.

For the last 10 years or so I have been on this journey to understand the people who wrote the Bible. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one big one is that I don't think we give enough credit to how their frame of reference influenced what they said and how they said it. I will spend the rest of my life unraveling that reality, but suffice it to say that the Bible was not written by folks who lived or thought like 21st century Christians.

It was written by real people at a real time in a real place.  And that is significant. So, I have plunged myself into understanding the Jewish world of the 1st century.  And I'll be honest, I admire them - a lot. My good friends make fun of me. Not really gentile, not really Jewish.

What am I? Another label that we all joke with and laugh.  But it raises a question that I have gotten a lot. So are you saying that we should all become Jewish? Absolutely not. But not for the same reasons that I think most people would suggest.


Without question, I am deeply convicted that we (western Christians) have neglected our obligation to the Old Testament in general and specifically to Torah. And I would like to submit a perspective of what I see the Scripture actually doing.


God NEVER breaks His covenant. And Jesus reaffirms His intent to fulfill, not abolish the Torah. This would lead us to a couple of questions from the text.

First, Hebrews 7...

Paul, who wrote 15 of the 27 books of the new testament (if you give him Hebrews), wrote everything we have of his in Greek. Paul was not Greek, he was Hebrew. But he wrote in Greek to help a cross cultural context understand who Jesus is and how we relate to Him.

 Question: Where did Paul learn his Greek? And when expressing theological or biblical truths in Greek, where did he learn what words to use and how to use them? The obvious answer would be that he learned how to talk about God in Greek from the Septuagint (which is the greek version of the Old Testament and was written about 250 years before the time of Christ).

 On the surface, that doesn't sound all that profound. But dig a little deeper and we are going to see some huge ramifications that may very well push some hard buttons. If the Septuagint is the standard for expressing Hebrew thought in Greek, then it is not enough to do a Greek word study when we read the New Testament. We must also trace that word back to how it was used in the Septuagint and find its Hebrew equivalent because it is there that we understand what reality Paul or any other New Testament writer for that matter is trying to convey. And, when that concept doesn't exist in the Hebrew Scriptures, we often see Paul making words up. He often sticks words together that have never been done before because he is trying to convey an idea that has no basis or understanding in what he has previously studied.

 Quick example: Hebrews 7:18 says that there was an "annulment" of the preceding commands (the Law) because of its weakness and unprofitableness. Annulment is a strong word. In a legal sense, it means that the old Law (Torah) has been done away with. So, if the writer of Hebrews (we will say Paul) understands this Greek word from the Septuagint, then we need to see where it is used, and what is the Hebrew equivalent. The Greek word - "athetesis" - is only used one time in the Septuagint and that is found in 1 Samuel 24:11.

 A translation of the Septuagint says this: And behold, the skirt of thy mantle [is] in my hand, I cut off the skirt, and did not slay thee: know then and see to-day, there is no evil in my hand, nor impiety, nor rebellion; and I have not sinned against thee, yet thou layest snares for my soul to take it.

 The word for rebellion here is the same Greek word. And it translates the Hebrew word "pesha" which means rebellion or transgression.

 My thought: Paul is not trying to say that the New covenant "annuls" the Old covenant. From his understanding of how to communicate theological ideas from the only source for greek that would have given him that ability, he is saying that the Old Covenant created a rebellion that the new covenant can resolve through Christ. It does not, however, undo or annul what the old covenant does. It expands and unpacks it further.

Second Galatians 3...

Galatians 3:10 says that all who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse. Is Paul saying here that if we give space in our lives to the Torah that we are putting ourselves under a curse?  No way!

Here is the part I wanted to confirm before writing this post..

There are 3 parts to Torah. The first part is the "Cultic" Laws.  This would be those laws governing religious practice. The second part is the "Moral" Laws. This would be all the laws governing moral practice - don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, etc.

Then there is a 3rd section to Torah. In Hebrew it is called miqsat ma'aseh haTorah. In English this is translated "works of the Law." This section is specifically those parts of the Law that make one Jewish. And this is the part that Paul says is not where our hope comes from.

By the way, one of the central conversations in the Jesus community should be which laws go where. Because while we are free from becoming Jewish, I would submit that we are still obligated to the moral law - no doubt. And probably the cultic parts of the Law as well. No where are we ever freed from those. But I don't have time to pull that apart in this post.

The first written record that I am aware of concerning the Works of the Law is called MMT and is found as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is talmudic in nature which means that much of the content is interpretation and application more than direct quotation of Torah.  However, what it shows is that even though there is little written record, this existed easily within the first century religious conversation.

Now if we put this lens on and look at Paul's message, it changes things dramatically. Take a look at Acts 13 - Paul and Barnabas in Pisidian Antioch. When Paul preaches to the Jewish community there, the first message that he gives repaints all of Jewish history through the lens of Jesus.  And we would think that they would freak out.  But Acts 13:42 say in the ESV that as they left the synagogue, they begged Paul and Barnabas to come back and talk about this again at the next meeting.  And many of the devout Jewish leaders followed them and asked to hear more of that teaching.

So the next week, they come back and there are all kinds of Jews and gentiles present.  And the short version of Paul's message is this: because of Jesus, you gentiles are in too!!!  And then the Jewish people FREAK OUT!!

Jesus isn't the problem. That people don't have to be Jewish to be okay with God is the issue.  This is also what Paul is talking about in Ephesians 2 - we are saved by grace through faith not by works so that no one can boast.

Paul's conversation is not about whether or not we can earn salvation. It is about whether or not one has to become Jewish before becoming a Christian. And by the way, that was the fundamental battle being fought in the church in Rome and through the book of Romans.

And by the way this is the central piece to Paul's message where ever he went.

Am I saying that someone can earn their salvation? No, I am saying that that isn't the conversation Paul is trying to have in Ephesians 2. And that is important.

The implications for this are vast and profound and I have taken way too little space to discuss a very large topic.  But here are some of the reasons why this matters...

First, I believe that every word of the Scripture is inspired - all of it. And to claim that we are "New Testament" Christians has an underlying connotation that we are not "Whole Bible" Christians.  While we may not mean that, we say it, we spend our time in the New Testament, and we don't spend much time at all grappling with the Old Testament, we just say "Well that was the Old Covenant." and run away from it.

Again, that would be a part of the larger story that we are telling by the little bits and pieces that people hear from us.

Second, I do not believe that you can truly understand Jesus without understanding the Old Testament. Not just Jesus in the OT, but understanding the OT as it is - part of the unfolding story of God's redemption of all things.

Third, we will never be able to understand the New Testament and what it means without understanding the Old Testament as it is used through out the the New.  IT IS ONE STORY! And whatever the New Testament says, it says as a consistent part of what has already been said.

So, no, we don't need to become Jewish, but perhaps there is something to be said for embracing Jewish thought and practice.  For me, it has taken the Bible and the Christian life from black and white to full HD color!

My Questions About American Religion #5 - Why can't we question?

So here is an interesting little side track from our former trajectory... But it is something that has "emerged" (you might see the pun later) out of the discussion.

So, my whole life I have asked questions.  Drove my mom nuts.  In fact she may still be in therapy! (just kidding)

I have an insatiable desire to know - well, everything. It is more than just I want to be a life long learner. I have a driving passion to get to the thing below the thing. It drives my wife crazy at times too. And I get it. What would it be like to be married to someone who is analyzing every move you make, every word you speak, and the infinite meanings to the combinations of those 2 things.  It has to be exhausting. So, as I know that my amazing wife will be reading this, I want to say that I am sorry.

That being said, asking me to not analyze is like asking me not to breath. I can't help it. So, I won't stop  analyzing. I can't!

That leads me to my thought for this post...

Why is it that if I am asking questions of some things about American religion I begin to get labeled as part of certain schools of theological thought or certain "emergent" groups that are asking similar questions?

Why is it so important to know what my particular doctrinal school is?  And why would anyone assume that I can fit into one? And how can we assume that ANYONE would fit into just one theological system?

I mean, honestly, why do people work so hard to resolve these questions that have no simple answers?

For example, how old is the earth? And if I admit that the earth is in fact older than 6,000 years, am I an evolutionist? What if I think maybe the earth is over millions of years old? Do I not love God enough to believe what none of us were there to see?

How does God expect me to treat "those" people? whoever they may be...

Why does God allow suffering? I mean REALLY!  No trite answers here please!

What if I disagree with Piper or Driscoll on a theological issue? And heaven forbid that I would agree with Rob Bell!  I recently heard someone call N.T. Wright (who is one of the greatest theological minds of our time) a "waste of human flesh." Really? because you disagree with him? THAT is the label he gets?

A few years ago I read an awesome article written by Tony Campollo called "Where are all the liberal scholars?" His point, and I think a valid one, was that we don't have any voices in the church world that challenge the status anymore. Dobson says all there is to know about family. Piper says all there is to know about theology. And Swindoll still is the final word on preaching.  And we only put up with Rick Warren because you can't argue with how many copies of Purpose Driven Life were sold.

Don't get me wrong. I have read all these guys on these very issues. And I believe that what they say has great depth. But they are just a few of the great voices that should be at the table. Why can't a Tony Jones or Rob Bell influence the over all conversation on a topic?  We just might find that none of us knew as much as we thought we did.

And maybe that is the point.  That we want to know that we know.  So, we are constantly pushing towards resolution of things. Sermon, books, conversations, small groups - all these try to push us to resolution. And yet, when we are honest with ourselves, it didn't work.

There are multiple reasons why that might be true, but I want to address a couple. First, anytime you resolve something for someone, you take away their need to think about it anymore. Consider how Jesus taught. He leaves this open ended story that raises more questions than it answers, and then puts a hint in it (this is called a remez and it is found in everyone of Jesus' parables) but doesn't tell you where it is (except that we know it is in the text), so you have to start digging for it.

Jesus resolved almost nothing. but drove people to the Word and to their knees. And my experience has been that real teaching that inspires and compels us to grow up in our faith becomes the first word of many more words on a topic.  It is never the final word on anything.

Second, God's Word, which is full of wonder and mystery, leaves so many questions. From creation to how things are going to end, it raises WAY more questions than it answers.

And it seems that God likes leaving these questions there.  In fact, if you look at the people that God loves to use, they are often not the ones who have the best answers, but those who are asking better questions. So, why is it that if a person begins asking questions, they immediately get the "liberal" or "compromise" label attached to them?

What have I compromised? And where have I been so liberal?

Jesus was 12 at the temple and the text says that He was sitting with the rabbis and asking them questions.  And all the people marveled at His wisdom.  We often see the one asking questions as the one who is the uninformed. Jewish thought sees this the exact opposite. It is the better question that reveals that we have wrestled this through to a place to stand.

Here is my conclusion today... If being conservative means that I have to uphold a certain dogma and that I can never let people see the questions that I wrestle with pertaining to the lines of thinking I have been given, then I do not want to be conservative. But for that matter, I don't want to be liberal either. And I don't want to be emergent or traditional, or reformed, or neoreformed, or denominational or non-denominational. And I don't want to be fundamentalist or dogmatic. But I don't want to be a person who compromises my convictions either.

I guess when it all gets boiled down, I don't want to be labeled by people who are trying to stick me in a box that they are comfortable with so that they can believe that they know things about me without taking the time to really get to know me. And while I could really tout how they are missing out, I feel like I am the one who gets robbed.  I miss out on getting to know them as well.  And that is what hurts deeper. That they won't let me truly know them.

I will always continue to ask questions.  It is just who I am. And the idea that there are folks out there that won't be comfortable with that makes me sad.

If being a fundamentalist means that I have to adhere to a preset group of dogmas without questioning or challenging them, then I will never be fundamentalist. Nor do I want to be.  But that doesn't make me liberal or emergent either. Not only are these not the only options, but they aren't options at all in my mind.  I am just me. trying to live out my created design in the most God centered way possible. Hopefully, we can all find Jesus in the midst of that.

Sorry this is taking longer than I thought...

So, I have a friend in Jerusalem who is a Jewish Theology teacher at Yeshiva (university) in Jerusalem. I have a couple of specific questions about my next post that I am wanting to get some input from him on before I post so I am waiting for a response before I write.

So, here is a good blog post to keep you occupied while we all wait:

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/11-things-i-wish-more-pastors-would-say

No blog post today...

I am researching for my next post and I need a few days to confirm some facts before I write. So, I will not be writing anymore through the weekend.  But I will attempt to post again on Monday.  Thanks for everyone who is reading.  I am blessed.

My Questions About American Religion #4 - How Many Stories Do We Have To Tell?

This one is a little sticky...

Very early on in the development of Christianity, there began to arise an "anti-Semitic" sentiment in Greek Jesus followers. The range of writings about this span from Augustine (A.D. 354-430) to Martin Luther (A.D. 1483-1586).  It seems that Gentile Christians have had it out for their Jewish roots almost from the beginning of the Christian movement.

Some Quotes:
"Augustine’s characterization of the Jews, their beliefs, and their practices is insulting, but it springs not from any real encounter with practicing Jews, but from his interpretation of their religious practices as understood through Scripture." - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2012/05/unwilling-witnesses-st-augustine-and-the-witness-doctrine/#sthash.tn3FDo9w.dpuf

His dependence upon Jewish tradition did not, however, prevent him from reproaching the Jews for not understanding, or not wishing to understand, the O. T. In his "Tractatus Adversus Judæos" he endeavors, as his main object, to prove from Scripture that the Law is fulfilled in Jesus, and that therefore Christians may rightfully have recourse to the O. T. even if they do not observe the Law. His endeavor to prove the Messianic character of Jesus from Psalms xliv., xlviii., and lxx. is very far-fetched; as well as his plea for the rejection of the Jews, based on Isaiah ii. and Mal. i. 10, 11. He says on this point, "If the Jews in the Isaiah passage [verse 5] understand 'the house of Jacob' to be equivalent to 'Israel,' because both names were borne by the patriarch, they only show how incapable they are of comprehending the true contents of the O. T.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2136-augustine#anchor9

Martin Luther wrote an entire book called The Jews and Their Lies. In it, he writes:
"I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them. But since I learned that these miserable and accursed people do not cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have published this little book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews who warned the Christians to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the god of the world, and wherever God's word is absent he has an easy task, not only with the weak but also with the strong. May God help us. Amen."

"Therefore the blind Jews are truly stupid fools..."

"Now just behold these miserable, blind, and senseless people ... their blindness and arrogance are as solid as an iron mountain."

These are just a few of the absolutely horrendous things that have been said over the generations by well meaning "Christian" theologians trying to deal with the relationship between Jews and Christians.

Frank Viola in his book Pagan Christianity addresses the roots of this and ties it to Constantine legalizing Christianity and needing to separate it from the Jewish roots of Christendom.

I don't know where it all started for sure. But I know that it sure is prevalent in the church today. I recently had a conversation with a man who has been in ministry for 42 years. As my dad and I were talking with this man about our trip to Israel, he said very matter of fact like, "You know why that place is a desert over there? Because it is no longer under God's blessing."

HUH?!?!?!

Here is an opening thought... God NEVER breaks His covenant. God doesn't just change His mind mid-stream to make another provision. He doesn't have to.

And that is a big deal. Because if that is true, then from creation to the end of things, God story is being told as  He intended it to be told.

But do we talk about the Bible that way?

Here is the story I was raised in and taught over and over again all the way through my advanced theological education...

God created this perfect world.  We messed it up. So, God came up with another way to work among His people - the Law. Jews messed it up. So they got replaced (whether that is a full blown "replacement theology" or some lesser version of it) by the church. And through Jesus we have NEW understanding and therefore we must read the Bible from Jesus to the end.  We are NEW TESTAMENT Christians. it is a new story that replaces the old story that replaced the first story.

I know that some of you reading this are saying... It's not that simple.  I know, it never is.  And what about the prophecy of Genesis 3:15, blah , blah, blah...

I am not defending or critiquing any theological positions. I am simply talking about how we actually talk about the story being told in the Bible. Because regardless of our theological and doctrinal positions, we talk about things in a certain way.  And that is what people catch.

It is almost as if God has to keep adapting to us. By the way, this may very well have its roots in the fact that most folks start their story in Genesis 3 - with man.  And because of the western focus on self first, we see the story of the Bible from ourselves out rather than as it was perhaps intended. If we start our story in Genesis 1, Then we start with God telling the story.  And the rest of the Scripture is a continual unfolding of His story that was, is, and will always be His. So there are no "new" twists and turns.  There is no need for "adaptation" by God to make up for our silliness.

So, what does Jesus mean when He says in the upper room, "The cup represents a 'new covenant' in my blood?"

Well, that is what I really want to address in this post. What is God's view of covenant? And based on that, what are the implications for how we tell the story (or stories)?

Anytime that God works with mankind, He works with us in covenant. I will briefly touch the 3 major Jewish covenants and of course our new covenant.

After the flood, God came to Noah and made a covenant with him that God would never destroy the earth with water again.

God came to Abram, and changed his name to Abraham and made a covenant with him that the whole world would be blessed through his offspring, that God would give him a promised land, that he would be the father of many nations (true of both the Jews and the Arabs), and that whomever blessed him and his offspring would be blessed and whomever cursed them would be cursed.

Genesis 17:13 says this is to be an everlasting covenant. Does God know how long everlasting is? I think He has a pretty good idea.

God made a covenant through Moses with the Jewish people. His covenant is that they would be His treasured possession (Exodus 19:5-6), a kingdom of priests (this will be another post down the line as well). They are to be for Him an example to the world of who He is.

There are lots of other covenants God made with His people as well. (i.e. priestly, Davidic) What I would ask is this...

Did God undo the Noahic Covenant in order to make the Abrahamic covenant? Are we still under the rainbow?

Did God undo the Abrahamic Covenant to make the Mosaic covenant? Were God's people still special and blessed among the nations?

There is never an example in all the covenants that God made where God undoes one covenant to make another.  That is not the way covenant works.

Matthew 5:17-19 (ESV) - Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For, truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Did Jesus intend to do away with any of the former covenants? He didn't do away with Noah's covenant. He can't break Abraham's covenant, it is an everlasting covenant. And He flat out says that He is not abolishing the Mosaic covenant? So what is this "New covenant" thing He talks about and why does this matter to us?

The way covenant works is pretty straight forward. God is telling a story with this world He made and He is inviting us to be a part of it. There are points in which He reveals new pieces of Himself, and this is at the heart of making a new covenant.  But never EVER does a new covenant negate the older ones - EVER.  They are simply a further unfolding of what already is. And so Jesus doesn't negate the "Old Testament." in fact He validates and honors it.  He unfolds the heart with which we must honor Torah.

So am I saying that we should all be Jewish? No, but that will be another post as well.

Here is the bottom line: God has been telling His story since the creation of the world. And what we must remember as modern Christians is 21st century, western Christianity not the crowning achievement of His story.  His story has been continually unfolding for a long time and we have been grafted into THAT story, not the other way around.

There is only one story. From Genesis 1 to Revelation 22 it is all one story.  Perhaps there is a better label to put on us than "New Testament" Christians. We are either a part of the story that has always been true and continues to be told or we are not.

There are some profound implications that I will state here for the sake of discussion but will not build much of a case for because this is already too long...

1. We cannot negate the first 2/3's of the Bible because that is the "before Jesus" stuff. That is not only detrimental to our understanding of God and the story He is telling, but it is also hypocritical because...

2. If we say we believe in "plenary verbal" inspiration of the Scripture (every word fully inspired by God), then we cannot treat parts of the Bible as more important than others. Even in a philosophical sense, that doesn't work. But it certainly doesn't work in practice.

3. I do not believe that you can truly know Jesus without knowing the Old Testament well. Not just Jesus in the Old Testament, but the Old Testament as it is intended, written, and interpreted. Everything that Jesus did, and everything that Jesus said is anchored in the Old Testament Scriptures.

It is important for us to understand that we don't have multiple tracks working in the mainframe of the story God is telling.  And that the Jesus covenant doesn't undo the Mosaic covenant. It expands, broadens and deepens what already is.  This is how God has worked from the beginning. And that is where we start our story.

My Questions About American Religion #3 - What are we trying to build?

To begin this post, I want to state a couple of things.  I have planted 2 churches.  Both of these churches are "mega-churches." I have no problem with big churches and I have no intent of leaving them to go pull away and be a part of some monastery. Although there are days when the idea sounds appealing. =)

Let's go back and think about beginning in the beginning. If the story we are telling is an invitation to return to God's original agenda for His creation, then we need to consider what that is so that we can make sure we are a part of it. And it is time to introduce the first of many Hebrew concepts for this series... Shalom.

Shalom when translated means peace. But we must make sure that we have an accurate understanding of "Peace" from a Hebrew perspective. Now, this is not a blog to exhaust what Shalom is, there is much written about that already. But a quick survey would be useful I think in grappling with the issue at hand.

Peace in the western mind is often translated as the absence of conflict. This definition of peace demands that we have circumstances that are acceptable to us in order to have peace. And this creeps into our lives much more than I think we realize. Even for those who would absolutely call themselves a follower of Jesus, when circumstances are bad we have a tendency to trust the truth of our circumstances, not the truth of God's agenda.

To interject a tangent thought here: if you start your story in Genesis 3, then all of your circumstances start bad. The whole universe is under suspicion. This is magnified by a very western metaphysic that touts that the universe is utter chaos. Our job, then, if we want to have peace is to control it. So we strive to understand, control, and predict the universe believing that in doing so, we can have peace. Not to go all Dr. Phil on us here, but "How is that working for us?"

Peace is the Eastern mind comes from a different place.

The Hebrew perspective is that the universe is effectively ordered by a God that is first of all Sovereign, and second of all in His nature He is good.

There are 2 ways to understand this and for the sake of time, I am simply going to propositionally state them. First, Galatians 5:22-23 says that the fruit of the Spirit (in other words, the evidence that the Spirit is working in your life) is love, joy, PEACE, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. This would mean that peace - whatever it is - is a gift of God working in your life, not a circumstantially based reality.

Second, when the Spirit is working in our lives we are becoming more and more like Jesus in our daily lives. This brings us more and more in line with God's agenda for this world. So, if the creation story is about a proper ordering of creation in all of its facets (which it is at one level), then perhaps walking with Jesus closer and closer is at least in part about restoring the order that God has for His creation.  

Peace then, comes from the realization that everything is in fact just as it should be.  Peace comes when we own and live the reality that this is God's world. It always has been God's world. And it always will be God's world. And no amount of Chaos will ever ultimately change that, although it will try to make you believe that it has.

To state it another way, Shalom (peace) is trusting that God's agenda for this world is right and cannot be stopped.  Therefore I can rest regardless of the circumstances I am currently experiencing.

And it would seem that God's invitation for us as followers of His would be to partner with Him in the restoration of Peace - to people, and to this world.

One major implication of this is that the church as God gave it to us should be about the restoration of peace in all that we do.  And what we are building is not so much about buildings, budgets, and butts in seats; it is more about wholeness, healing, and hope for today and tomorrow.

Now, one of the major obstacles that we face is trying to square western values with biblical principles. Typically, when we have these dichotomies, the principle loses. Not so much because we reject it, but often we simply have no frame of reference for it to play out in our lives.

We have been raised in a culture that loves bigger, faster, stronger, and dominance. Competition is at the core of what drives this. Comparison, keeping score, building huge organizations, more money, more power - these are all by products of a worldview that starts in a very different place than the biblical worldview.

Now, before we go any further, I want to restate that I have no problem with big or fast or strong. God gives these things to certain people, organizations, and teams. I am simply saying that perhaps, chasing these ends is not only robbing you of the peace that God offers, it is not at all what God is asking us to give to the world.

So, are we asking the right questions when we go to a conference on how to "Grow the church?" Or is the desire to grow the church even a good desire? And are bigger and better buildings a good investment with Kingdom dollars?

I am going to say - Yes.  And No! It will all depend on what truly is the motivation of our hearts as we spend this money to do these things. Are we trying to "win?" or are we trying to restore what is broken?

There is this thing in all western cultures because they start with the self and work out from there that makes self preservation a primary concern for the humans being.  My stuff, my protection, what I want and what I need all takes precedent over the good of the community.  And this bleeds all over the church. While we try to talk about giving, loving and serving, we are so self motivated that we still bounce from church to church looking for something that entertains, or that meets "my needs" because that is what this is all about after all.

Consequently, we find ourselves trying to build these massive organizations that we call church and we try to pass it off as a noble effort, but it has much more to do with bigger, faster, stronger domination than it does anything else.  And we can try to spiritualize this. We are winning over satan! We are dominating the devil!  But the whole need for winning and dominance is rooted in a faulty worldview to begin with so it creates an unresolvable tension between our teaching and our organizations that people can feel.  And while they may not be able to put their finger on it, they can certainly tell that something isn't right.

Again, this isn't a bash against large things.  It is an observation about the motivations that cause us to build them in the first place.  There are those movements of God where big things happen. You cannot stop it and often can't account for what happened exactly although many people try to because they want to "reproduce" the growth. And so we write books and then define our system and people try it and it doesn't work and they wonder why and often feel more inadequate than they did before (guess where they are starting their story).

Perhaps, the better approach would be consider wholeness and how we restore peace to a chaotic world, rather than growth and how we make a big church. Getting a bunch of people in a room is easy. helping them let go of the brokenness that they have defined themselves by and experiencing freedom and hope and peace... THAT is a whole other ball game.  It is messy and challenging.  And forces me to deal with my stuff along the way as well.

Maybe part of our battle is that we are trying to morph God into our western "Empire building" mindset and I would submit that a big piece of the tension we feel between what we are teaching and what we want to have happen is that we are incongruent. Maybe we must choose between focusing on getting bigger and becoming whole.  And like the scriptures teach - Paul planted, Apollos watered, but God makes it grow.

I will close with a story. 

10 years ago, my marriage nearly fell apart. I was in a fast growing church with lots of recognition. It was a pastor's dream job and yet I found myself ready to run away and leave it all.  And the cost of living with the pressure of keeping up and producing more and more was way more than I was able to handle. There is only so much pressure one can take before they crack and eventually break.

I found myself at the end of my faith. And since I was there already, I decided to question everything.  And I mean EVERYTHING! Do I believe in God? Do I believe in church? Do I believe in the Bible? Why do I do what I do? Is that okay?

With the help of some great friends, here is where I landed... Ministry is supposed to give life, not take it away. How can I walk and work with the giver of life and not have any?

Second, when ministry doesn't give life, it is because I am doing things from my own power, not the Lord's. And while we all visit that place, I was living there because of the reasons that were driving me to build a large church in the first place.

Third, God cares way more about my wholeness than my production. He never says that I have to have a church of a certain size, but often says that I am to be free, healed, and transformed. I cannot care about what God cares about if my goal is to grow a big church.

Fourth, within our culture, we are invited to build our own empire.  We are encouraged to amass wealth and to find security in the possession of this wealth. God invites us to peace. And Jesus is right when He says you cannot chase both.  You will love one and despise the other.

So, I pose this question to you... Empire or Shalom? which are you chasing? is it working?  What are you building?

My Questions About American Religion #2 - The way we tell the story (Part B)

I want to continue this idea just because I see it as so core to the rest of everything...

The Hermeneutical idea driving this discussion is wrestling with the implication that our story starts in Genesis 1 not in Genesis 3.  While this sounds simple enough, the reality of this is HUGE in how we tell the story.

I want to point out that no matter where we choose to start, we are telling the same story.  There is not a right story and a wrong story.  The goal is not to get anyone to admit fault or feel bad about how they have told the story up to this point.

The goal is to consider what implications come from the way we tell the story.

Just to restate something from the last post... When we start our story in Genesis 1, we start with a good God who has a good purpose for this world here and now and is inviting us to partner with Him in the redemption of all things.  When we start our story in Genesis 3, we are starting our story with the fall of man. This makes us begin with all the ways in which we have failed to live up to God's standard. That forces us to tell the story from a certain metric that leads people down a path with its own set of implications.

To revisit the parenting illustration, my simple question is, does that work in truly transforming people from broken to whole? Or is the focus of this discussion about making them right as opposed to wrong?

And my follow up question to that is, which one does God care about? Does God desire us to be right as opposed to wrong, or whole as opposed to broken? And if you are trying to answer, "Both," you are missing the question. We must focus on one or the other because if right is equal to whole, then it makes no difference how we get there as long as we are right. But if wholeness is the objective (which it is), then we must bring people into a space where they can actually experience healing and freedom.

By the way, in order to do this well we must deal with things within our own hearts that keep us broken and fearful.  There are so many reasons why we share the "Gospel" (we will talk about that later as well) with others and very few of them are actually rooted in God's agenda. We are going to have to get real with that before anything else matters.  But I think this is a place to start THAT process as well.

Just a few implications to get you started thinking:
If you start your story in Genesis 3 you have to spend most of your time talking about the removal of sin. But if you start your story in Genesis 1, you spend most of your time talking about the restoration of peace. And I want to say this again... I am not saying we don't talk about sin. But sin is able to take its proper place in the story.

What we must always remember is that sin is not the problem for us. Rebellion is the problem. Sin is an extension of that. What are we rebelling against? God's ordering of the universe and this earth specifically. So perhaps, the better conversation centers on understanding God's agenda for the earth and how we are expected to be a part of that, rather than spending our time talking about all the ways we fall short of that agenda.

This is important for many reasons, but I will give a couple here. First, you don't have to tell me that I have messed up God's agenda, I already know that. Second, as soon as you try to make me "wrong" rather than just inviting me to a better reality, I am immediately on the defensive and begin fighting for my rebellion rather than moving towards my own personal healing and restoration.

If you start your story in Genesis 3 you must spend a great deal of time talking about getting "out of this place." The slippery slope here leads us to a place where we begin to see the earth itself - rocks, dirt, water - as evil. And we want out of here. And why wouldn't we? So, unintentionally, we promote this idea that the real action is somewhere else.  One simple spur of this is that if this is true, I do not want to be a Christian right now.  I want to wait. Because all we can do is say yes to Jesus then "hold on til the end." Well, I for one want to "hold on" as little time as possible. None of us would come right out and say this, but let's be honest, this is often how we feel.

If we begin our story in Genesis 1, we can focus on our role in God's work here and now.  We are not waiting for "some glad morning," we are expectant about God's work here and now, moment by moment.

This has extreme fingers for how we talk about ministry and doing the work of God in general. Churches have a tendency to want to take all the best Christian leaders in the world and hire them to work for the church.  And people who work in a "secular" job (another distinction raised by this conversation) feel like they "only make money to give to the people who are doing the real work."

I would suggest that Genesis 1 invites us to consider that "the earth is the Lord's and EVERYTHING in it." And that perhaps many of the distinctions we make between sacred and secular are not only untrue, but they are counter-productive to God's restorative plan for the world.

Again, I am only scratching the surface, but space does not allow for us to explore all the different places that this plays out.  Perhaps, you have more implications to consider? I would love to read about where else you see this potentially playing out.

May you be filled with the life that beginning in the beginning can bring.

My Questions About American Religion #1 - The way we tell the story.

Consider being a parent.  Let's say that you are a parent with 2 kids - identical twins in fact. And being the great scientist that you are, you decide to run an experiment on them (don't actually do this, but run the illustration out with me).

So each time that you see the first twin, we will call him Bill, you remind him of how broken he is. You remind him of his need for change and growth and how short he has fallen of your expectations for him. How does Bill see you? What does Bill believe that you feel about him?

Now, each time you see the second twin, we will call him Joe, you remind him of how much potential he has. And while he may sell himself short at times, he is worth more than he could ever imagine. How does Joe see you? What does Joe believe you feel about him?

Now let's get back to reality. Over time, our friends and family get a bigger picture of who we believe God is based on the little bits and pieces that we share. And given a big enough stretch of time, people begin to develop a larger picture of what they believe God feels about them and what they are supposed to believe about themselves based on that same information.

I grew up in church. And I will be honest, there is a place for the prophet style preaching of repentance and contrition and brokenness.  But the church seems to idolize those teachers that can come in and drop the hammer on a regular basis.  And we use all kinds of "spiritual phrases" to describe what we experience. He really brought conviction... I am ruined by my own sinfulness... I am not worthy of Jesus' love... (this last one is the most offensive to God in my opinion)

I will say that there is a place in the Kingdom of God for "bringing the heat" of conviction in a sermon. But go back to my parenting illustration. What does a steady diet of that do to those we are responsible for? And not only are we responsible for them, but we are also responsible for giving people an accurate picture of who our God is.

Just a side note... I don't know that anyone needs to tell me how much of a sinner I am.  I already know that.  And you would probably say the same thing. And so would the people sitting in your church.

2 Timothy 4:1-2 says, "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of His appearing and His Kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke, and encourage - WITH GREAT PATIENCE AND CAREFUL INSTRUCTION." (Emphasis is mine)

Part of my concern is that the way we tell the story is neither patient nor careful. We stand in the name of "Truth" and espouse the short comings of men and feel like we have done a good thing.  And again, while the hard line has a place in the story, IT IS NOT THE STORY ITSELF. And perhaps that is what we should be focusing on.

Another part of my concern is that this becomes much like the parenting illustration I used earlier.  And one of my fears is that we are presenting an inaccurate picture of who our God is.  That at the bottom of it there is more about who our parents were than who God really is.  I have GOOD NEWS (a Gospel if you will)  for you. Your parents short comings don't describe God. In fact, they make us long for God even more.

What ever way we choose to tell the story of God and faith and church and "religion," it must begin in the beginning.  It cannot be shaped to the nuances of our personality quirks because we want to bring a "strong word" which winds up being no word at all.

At the risk of turning this into a book, I want to give a perspective that may help.

To begin with, I think it is terribly important to start our story where God starts our story. Not with man at all, but with Him. God gives us an important insight into how He sees our story.

In the beginning, God created. And it was good, it was good, it was good.  This is a recurring theme.  And it is important to note the themes because of course things said over and over again are said for emphasis.  they are supposed to be caught and hung onto.

I tell this story to my daughter.  She is 7.  We adopted her from China. She was born without ears. Deformed, abandoned, worthless to her own mother.  If we start the story with man, or in Genesis 3 with how bad men are, then I have to start her story there.  And her identity becomes someone who is messed up and needs to be rescued. If that is her story, how does she think about how I feel about her, or about how God feels about her?

But what if I start her story where God starts her story? It was good, it was good, it was good, and when God created man and woman, He said, "It is VERY good." When I tell her this story, I make her repeat, "It was good!" and with each day of the creation story she gets more and more excited because the great climax of the story is coming.

So, I say, "And God made man and woman and what did He say?"

"REALLY GOOD!!" she replies back excited, because she knows what is next (we have been down this road before).

"And what did God say when He made you?"

"Perfect!"

"That's right!" I get teared up just writing about this moment that I have shared with my daughter a hundred times. Cause the weighty reality that where we start her story matters so significantly hits me every time.

If I start her story with man's fallenness, then her past, her deformity, her baggage has to be part of the story.  If I start her story with a good God who sees her potential and noticed her and sees her as significant, then her potential and her future and hope rule the conversation.  And that is GOOD NEWS!

Now, I will say that both pieces of the story are real.  Genesis 3 is just as much a part of the story as Genesis 1. But which part do you want to define the story you tell others about your God? Do you want them to hear a story about a good God who created a good world and while our rebellion gets in the way of us joining God in His agenda for this world, He created each of us with tons of potential to redeem the world and re-align it with His purposes and plans? Or do you want them to be reminded of how messed up people are (which they already know anyway) and how Jesus had to die cause you are so messed up (we will talk about this in a later post) and they should feel really bad and convicted and change it up and fly right or else there will be hell to pay - for real?

Beginning at the Beginning is really important.  And the implications are vast.  But this is already long enough. So, I would just conclude with some questions for us to ponder.

In your marriage, what story are you telling your spouse? Do you remind them of what they aren't, or do you celebrate what they are?

I would say the same for your kids...

When you try to "convince" people that God is real and they should follow Him, are you really trying to convince them of how empty, shallow and bad their life is? Or are you telling a compelling story of God's amazing agenda for this world and how we can partner with Him in the process?

Tell a better story!  Begin in the beginning.

A New Series...

God has had me on an amazing journey.  I love watching the Scriptures come to life for me in new and profound ways.  But this has begun to come at an interesting cost that I was not aware was happening but is becoming more and more profound. I am finding it harder and harder to join in the conversation with people when they are sharing what they are finding in Scripture.

Here is the equation... The Bible is written by people with an Eastern mindset.  More importantly, an ancient near eastern mindset.  This is radically different than a modern western mindset and while we will openly admit that this notion is true, I have rarely found people who will actually do the work of figuring out the implications.

The only way that I have found to describe what I continue to experience in my life is that Hebrews 4:12 says that the Word of God is living and active.  I never got that until I began to see the Bible through the lens of those who wrote it. Gaining an understanding of their context, thoughts, interpretations, and the conversation that had already been going on around the topics has taken what I have always seen in black and white and made it color.

Think about this, pretend for a moment that a person could only see in black and white.  And all of a sudden you began to see in color.  Maybe a bit like the Wizard of Oz...

How do you describe what you see to a person that can not see color nor do they have any context for what color even is?  This has been a dilemma for me for a few years now.  And I think I have come up with at least a partial solution.

I want to write a new series called, "My questions about American religion."

I have no interest in bashing religion per se, or in even being defiant towards the establishment.  But I want to explore the precepts that I believe have led to my own transformation.  And the reason why I believe that while most American Christians will talk a good game about the power of Jesus, they do not experience that in their lives very much.

Where is the disconnect for people who say they believe that Jesus is real but do not experience Him in their daily lives? Perhaps the roots of this are much deeper than we realize.

So I want to cover several topics.  And the list will probably expand as we go along.  But I want to talk about where our story begins and how that influences the story itself. I want to talk about why we want our church to grow, but it feels gross to talk about it. I want to talk about relationships and why we struggle to have them and to trust them.  I want to talk about some theological things like redemption, atonement, and covenant. I also want to talk about how we interpret Scripture and how that helps and hurts us.

Let me be clear, I do not believe that there is a right and a wrong in the conversation concerning Eastern and Western thinking.  The goal is not to figure out who is good and who is bad.  The goal is to explore the way that those who wrote the Bible think so that we can perhaps get a clearer picture of what they wanted to convey to us today.

Lastly, I am not so concerned with resolution. I want to honest with the tension that western religion creates. And while I want to be sensitive and kind about that conversation, sitting in the mess of it can make a person long to resolve it. I want the conversation. I want to be a part of the conversation, and I want to see and hear about people talking these ideas with others.

So help me out with this... What is a tension or contradiction that you see in western religion? Don't express your frustration with a certain person who did things a certain way.  But where are your questions? Because perhaps, one of the first lessons that we need to learn is that God doesn't challenge us to have the best answers.  He loves the one willing to ask the best questions.  May we all be blessed in this pursuit.