Ancestors: Adam and Eve

Note: You can watch this teaching on CrossWalk’s YouTube channel.

There are some characters and stories in the Bible that are better known than others.  Surely, the characters Adam and Eve and the story of their experience in the Garden of Eden are among the most familiar.  The way I was first introduced to this story was probably as a little tike being read to from a picture Bible created for toddlers.  I have no idea, actually, but growing up in a devoutly religious home, I’m sure this happened.  The primary thing I learned about this story was that it described how sin entered what had been a perfectly good creation – this is the text from which the doctrine of Original Sin was born.  The devil was involved, and so were bad choices – first by Eve, and then Adam.  There was accountability with consequences.  This was not a feel-good story.  It was a curse that would stay with us forever, a problem we couldn’t solve on our own.  The way I was taught, we could see our need for Jesus as the canceler of sins right there within the first three chapters of the Bible.  Our need for Jesus showed up from the very beginning.  I was in need of personal salvation from my sinful action, screwing up my own life.  The story explained why there is pain and suffering in the world, and Jesus was the solution for everyone’s individual redemption.  Original sin was equated with the story.  We assumed it always was.  But it wasn’t.

The very idea of original sin did not enter theological thought until St. Augustine came up with the metaphor over 300 years after Jesus lived.  Let that sink in a minute.  For the first 300+ years, the Christian message – the Good News – did not include the concept of original sin.  It was a new idea not known or discussed by the original audience – the Jews – since Genesis was put down on a scroll.

I was shocked to learn that “sin management” in that way was not how the original audience understood it nor how its authors meant it.  The story was written from a perspective that was historically informed.  This account wasn’t written like a newspaper article, but rather a history book with an agenda – to tell the story of the people of Israel.  Genesis was just part one of five – just the beginning (which is what “genesis” means).  The writers were less interested in solving our personal sin issues, and much more interested in developing the story of a nation.  The story found in Genesis 3 provided an allusion for what would come for all people in general, but specifically for the people of Israel.

The story rubs us a little wrong in our context.  We can understand why God would not want Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Life, which would make them like gods in that they could not die.  But knowledge?  We love learning.  We prize education.  We inherited this passion for understanding our world in a scientific, academic way from our Greek ancestors who valued “knowing” above most other things.  Greek thought is really the basis of Western thought, which is the way we think, and we generally don’t we’re doing it.  Naturally, we wonder what was God’s beef about restricting knowledge about good and evil – something we want for our own children from day one?

The problem here has to do with obedience to the wise way of God.  Adam and Eve’s disobedience was an attempt to jump the gun, to skip right to the end without regard to the process required for wisdom to take root.  What they wanted wasn’t inherently bad – to be like God.  The problem was how they were choosing to go about it, which, in this case, was to directly disobey the God that had provided everything – including their very lives.

When they ate of the forbidden fruit, their hearts didn’t stop beating, and yet they experienced an element of death in countless ways.  Their innocence was lost.  All of the things they were supposed to learn in time were circumvented, and that created issues going forward.  God, in this light, isn’t an unreasonable deity wanting to restrict his kids from good things.  God is a loving parent who appreciates the developmental stages of learning.  This is why good, loving parents restrict all manner of things from their kids depending on their age and stage.  What they are fed, what they are allowed to view, what they are allowed to say, who they are allowed to be around – there is a very long list of things that good parents restrict because their kid isn’t ready for it.  Highly paid professional athletes and lottery winners sometimes find themselves struggling to make ends meet after their respective ships came in.  How is that possible?  A fortune given without wisdom and experience to guide its handling can be overwhelming and doom the person to failure.  Even being given too much knowledge without the corresponding maturation process can be unhelpful.  Adam and Eve’s disobedience was against the process directed by God.  The problem wasn’t that they wanted to be like God, which is flattery.

They didn’t die, and God didn’t abandon them.  But things did change.  They got kicked out of the nest, and they found that life was going to be different than it had been.  They would not be alone, but the way they interacted with God would change.  This was the story of Israel.  After the exodus from Egypt, they were given the Law and told to follow.  If they obeyed, things would work out because the Law worked.  If they didn’t obey, things didn’t go so well because they stepped away from their source of life.  The journey of Israel is a cyclical saga of obedience, disobedience, repentance, and redemption.  Just like with Adam and Eve, God held Israel accountable, consequences ensued, but grace was still present.  This is the nature of God.

At the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, right after his baptism into a new mode of life, he went camping in the wilderness to sort things out.  During the journey, he faced three modes of temptation.  All of the temptations were like the forbidden fruit – shortcuts to power, influence, success, etc.  The difference was that Jesus didn’t fall to temptation.  He chose maturity instead.  He became the model for what Judaism was supposed to look like, a new Adam to follow.

How does your life story reflect Adam and Eve?  When in your life have you taken the shortcut instead of opting for the process?  When have you willfully disobeyed what you knew was right and true?  How did that work out?  How about right now?  Is there anything you need to rethink in light of the story?  You probably won’t die from your disobedience, but the consequences will suck.  It’s not the threat of an angry God we’re avoiding, it’s the invitation of a loving God we are rejecting.  Adam and Israel are cautionary tales.  Jesus is an encouraging one.  Which model do you choose to follow?

Nerd Out Notes…

Add these books to your reading list for reference on Genesis: Pete Enns, Genesis for Normal People by Pete Enns, which brings excellent academics with very approachable writing (he is fun to listen to and read); and In the Beginningby the great historian Karen Armstrong, which offers a Midrash approach to the texts.

From the Yale Anchor Bible Dictionary:

ADAM (PERSON) [Heb ʾādām (אָדָם)]. The Hebrew noun ʾādām generally denotes “human being,” “humankind.” The term is also used of the male individual in the Gen 2:4b–3:24 creation narrative.

A. Etymology and Use in the OT.

The etymology of the word is uncertain. ʾādām has often been associated with the root ʾdm “red.” Evidence cited in support of this association is widespread. In Akkadian, adamu means “blood, red garment,” and adamatu “black blood.” In Aramaic, ʾădām and other cognate terms refer to “blood,” while in biblical Hebrew ʾādōm means “red” (adj.), and the verb ʾādōm “to be red.” The Ugaritic verb ʾadm appears in several places in connection with bodily cleansing and anointing, and is usually translated “to rouge or redden.” It has been suggested that the use of ʾādām for “human” arises because of the reddish color of human skin.

The play on words in Gen 2:7 and 3:19 between ʾādām and ʾădāmâ “ground, earth,” has not been overlooked in the search for an etymology of the former. The name ʾādām is given to the human creature believed to have come from the ʾădāmâ. Of course, word plays in themselves do not necessarily indicate the etymology of a word. They could simply be used by writers or editors for literary effect. However, in this case the suggested etymological connection ought not to be ruled out. The Akkadian adamātu, “dark red earth” (used as a dye), suggests that the Hebrew ʾădāmâcould also be derived from the root ʾdm, “to be red.” ʾādām and ʾădāmâ could have been derived from the same root separately or the latter could have given rise to the former because of the similarity of skin tone to the color of the soil itself.

While we cannot draw any firm conclusions about the origins of biblical ʾādām, we should note that the word has cognates in other Northwest Semitic languages. ʾdm appears in both Ugaritic and Phoenician as “human being.” In the former, the high god El is called ʾab ʾadm, “the father of humankind.” The development of ʾdm for “humankind” would seem to have been confined to the Northwest Semitic domain since the Akkadian word for “human being” is awı̄lum/amı̄ (ē)lu. Thus, any etymological connection between ʾādām and either ʾdm “to be red,” or the root for “ground, earth,” would appear to be a localized Northwest Semitic phenomenon. The cognates for the latter two words range across the whole Semitic family.

B. ʾādām in Genesis 1–11.

ʾādām is used widely throughout the OT for “human-kind” or “human being.” It also occurs as the proper name of the first of the forefathers of the human family in 1 Chr 1:1. This may also be the case in Job 31:33, Hos 6:7, and Deut 4:32. In Genesis 1–5 the situation is more complex.

The use of ʾādām in J is concentrated in the primeval history of Genesis 2–11. In Gen 2:4b–4:25, the term refers to a specific male being. Elsewhere in the primeval narrative, it refers to humankind in general, even in Gen 8:21, which recalls the curse of Gen 3:17–19. In the context of Genesis 2–11, the individuality of the figure ʾādām in Gen 2:4b–3:24 must be seen as representative. No doubt the sources of the stories dictated in part the shape of the J narrative. ʾādām usually appears with the definite article hāʾādām (exceptions being 2:5, 2:20, and 3:17, the last two of which many scholars have amended).

While the individuality of the ʾādām figure in Gen 2:4b–3:24 is evident throughout the story, the restriction of ʾādāmto a male individual begins clearly only from 2:18. Thus the beginning of the story addresses the issue of human beings in general in the presence of Yahweh. The disobedience that follows is not to be blamed primarily on the woman in the garden, but is the responsibility of the whole human community, as the curses (3:14–19) reveal. In 4:1, 25, ʾādām is clearly used as the proper name of the father of Cain, Abel, and Seth. After these verses, J again employs the term in its broader context. We should note that the Septuagint and Vulgate begin to translate hāʾādāmas a proper name in Genesis 2:19.

In Gen 1:26–28, P uses ʾādām collectively as male (zākār) and female (nĕqēbâ). A single couple is not indicated here. ʾādām in its composite whole as male and female is the image of God. In Gen 5:3–5, however, P clearly understands ʾādām as an individual, i.e., the father of Seth and other children. The writer even records Adam’s age at death as 930 years. This transition in the P material cannot be properly understood apart from the intervening J narrative. Recent studies in the canonical shape of Genesis 1–11 (Childs IOTS, 148–50) have drawn attention to the interdependence of the J and P material and the theological import of their connection. Although Childs suggests that the J creation account plays a subsidiary role to that of P, he does point to the interconnection between creation (Genesis 1) and the history of humankind (Genesis 2). One should also note that, as the two chapters stand, they present a balanced picture of humanity. The creature made in the image of God, indeed invited into God’s presence, is also the creature primarily responsible for the subsequent alienation and enmity within creation. The two sides of humanity presented in Ps 8:4–7 are seen in reverse order in Genesis 1–3.

The closeness and yet enmity between humans and creation is highlighted by the play on words between ʾādāmeither as “human being” or the first male individual, and ʾădāmâ “ground, earth.” It is from ʾădāmâ that ʾādām is fashioned (Gen 2:7). The latter’s task is to till the ground (2:6). When ʾādām disobeys Yahweh, the ʾădāmâ is cursed (3:17–19). This in turn causes hardship for ʾādām. The end of ʾādām is again to return to the ʾădāmâ (parallel to ʿāpār“dust”). This wordplay continues through the flood story and is highlighted in 4:11–12 and 5:29. The link between ʾādām and ʾădāmâ in terms of sin and curse is only alleviated in 8:21–22. The dependence of fertility on human behavior, which remains wicked (8:21; 9:18–27; 11:1–9), is broken.

While the wordplay between ʾādām and ʾădāmâ is unique to the biblical material, the notion that humans are in part formed from earth or clay was widespread in the ancient Near East. We find it in the Sumerian account of the creation of humans where Enki, in order to fashion servants for the gods, calls on Mammu to “mix the heart of the clay that is over the abyss” (see Kramer 1961: 72–73). Likewise in the story of Atrahasis, Ea assists Mami, “the mistress of all the gods,” in fashioning humans by pinching off pieces of clay (Tablet I. 189–260; see Lambert and Millard 1969: 56–61; cf. ANET, 99–100).

C. ʾādām in Intertestamental Literature.

Little attention has been given to the ʾādām figure of Genesis 1–5 elsewhere in the OT. There are, however, possible allusions to ʾādām and the creation narrative in apocryphal literature (Sir 17:1; 49:16; Tob 8:6; Wis 2:23; 9:2; 10:1). Renewed interest in and speculation concerning ʾādām is found in pseudepigraphal, rabbinic, and gnostic texts. The Greek text Apocalypse of Moses is the most familiar of these. It tells of the life of Adam and Eve outside paradise, the death of Abel, the birth of Seth, Adam’s illness, and the journey of Eve and Seth to paradise in search of the oil of the Tree of Life which would cure Adam. Adam dies and his soul is taken into the presence of God by the Cherubim. Through the prayers of the angels, Adam is pardoned and taken back into the third heaven. While a good portion of this material overlaps with its Latin counterpart, The Life of Adam and Eve, the exact nature of the relationship between these two texts is difficult to determine (see OTP, 249–95 for a translation and discussion of both texts). See ADAM AND EVE, LIFE OF.

Emphasis in the Apocalypse of Moses focuses on two matters: (1) the nature of sin and the present human condition and (2) the hope of resurrection. The sin of Adam and Eve is their deliberate disobedience of God’s command (Apoc. Mos. 8:2; 10:2; 23:4, etc.). Eve is the one who initially succumbs to temptation and then dupes Adam into following her example (7:2–3; 9:2; 14:2; 21:1–6). Both lose the visible righteousness and glory of God which they had in the beginning (11:2; 20:1–2; 21:2). This sin brings hardship upon humanity. However, the image of God in which they were created is retained in their son Seth (9:3; 12:1), who is born according to the appointment of God (38:4).

While Adam’s death is a result of sin, it eventually provides an avenue to hope in resurrection. In his mercy God promises to pardon Adam and to raise him up to enjoy the benefits of paradise once again (28:4; 37:1–6; 41:3). This comes to fruition after his death. His former glory is restored (39:1–3) and the power of Satan is overcome, turning grief to joy. Just as others participate in the consequences of Adam’s sin, so there is hope that the “holy people,” those who adhere to the covenant, will share in his resurrection (13:3–5; 41:3).

Speculation in various noncanonical works also focuses on the figure of Adam. Philo stresses Adam’s perfection (Op 47:136–141), while various other works describe his honor and beauty above other living beings (e.g., Sir 49:16;Pesiq. Rab Kah 101). This beauty was lost with Adam’s sin (Gen. Rab. 11:2; 12:6). A motif of rabbinic thought is the enormous size of Adam, whose body stretches across the cosmos (e.g., Gen. Rab. 8:1; 21:3; 24:2; Pirqe R. El. 11; ʾAbot R. Nat. B8, etc.). Other passages note Adam’s great wisdom (Gen. Rab. 24:2; Pesiq. R. 115a).

D. Adam in the New Testament.

The most significant references to Adam in the NT are found in Rom 5:12–21 and 1 Cor 15:21–22, 45–49. Here Paul develops his Adam-Christ typology (on the debated origin of this typology, see discussion in Cranfield RomansICC, 269–95; Kasemann Romans HNT, 139–58; and Beker 1980). In Rom 5:12–21 Paul emphasizes the analogy between Adam, the one through whom sin and condemnation to death come into the world, and Christ, the one through whom life is offered to all. While this analogy presents Adam and Christ as those who shape the destiny of the world, the contrast is not to be ignored. The reign of grace and righteousness which comes through the second Adam confronts the reign of sin and death introduced through the first Adam and overcomes it.

In 1 Cor 15:21–22, the emphasis of the typology focuses on Christ as the one through whom resurrection to life comes. This theme is carried through in vv 45–49. In resurrection, one has a spiritual body, like that of the heavenly Christ, in contrast to the physical body which all humanity has in common with the earthly Adam. Paul draws on Gen 2:7 (LXX) as support. Here Paul could well be using the type of exegesis Philo exhibits in his discussion of Genesis 1:27 and 2:7, wherein he contrasts the heavenly, archetypal person with the historic Adam, made from dust (Legum Allegoriae, i.31). However, Paul understands these figures not as types but as eschatological and historical figures respectively (1 Cor 15:47).

Elsewhere in the NT, reference is made to Adam as the first generation of humanity (Jude 14 and Luke 3:38). In the latter text, he is foremost in the genealogy that leads to Jesus. In 1 Tim 2:13–14, the Eden story is used to justify the denial of teaching roles and positions of authority to women at that time. The writer stresses the prior creation of Adam, as well as the fact that Eve was the one deceived by the serpent. Adam is seen as completely innocent, while the woman in the story is labeled the transgressor. Such a line of argument is in keeping with early Jewish exegetical interpretations of Genesis 3 (e.g. Apoc. Mos. 15–21; Pirqe R. El. 1, 13).

Bibliography

Beker, J. C. 1980. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia.

Kramer, S. N. 1961. Sumerian Mythology. Rev. ed. New York.

Lambert, W. G., and Millard, A. R. 1969. Atrahasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Oxford.

Niditch, S. 1983. The Cosmic Adam: Man as Mediator in Rabbinic Literature. JJS 34: 137–46.

Sharp, J. L. 1973. Second Adam in the Apocalypse of Moses. CBQ 35: 35–46.

Wallace, H. N. 1985. The Eden Narrative. HSM 32. Atlanta.

Westermann, C. 1984. Genesis 1–11. Trans. J. Scullion. London.

EVE (PERSON) [Heb ḥawwâ (חַוָּה)]. Eve, the first woman, is an enigmatic figure. Apart from Genesis 2–4, she is mentioned very rarely in biblical material and yet she has played an important part in theological discussion and debate over gender roles in society throughout the postbiblical period (Pagels 1988). The origins of both the name and the figure have been the subject of wide-ranging scholarly debate.

A. The Name “Eve”

The woman in the garden of Eden story (Gen 2:4b–3:24) is given the name ḥawwâ, “Eve,” in Gen 3:20. This verse sits awkwardly in the text and many scholars assume a different recension of the story is used here from that in Gen 2:23 where she is called ʾiššâ, “woman.” Such a doublet could, however, arise from the oral tradition behind the narrative. The origin of the name ḥawwâ is uncertain. In the story the woman is called ḥawwâ because she is the “mother of all living (ḥay).” This suggests a derivation from the root ḥyh, “to live,” but no immediate connection can be sustained. J’s etymology is based solely on a wordplay. Note that the LXX translates ḥawwâ by zōē, “life,” in 3:20. Evidence from Ugaritic and Phoenician suggest another ancient word “to live,” ḥwy from which ḥawwâ could be derived. If this is the case, then the name itself is either borrowed or is an ancient traditional name.

The expression “mother of all living” has suggested to some a connection between Eve and various ANE mother goddesses. The Akkadian goddess Mami is called bēlet kala ilī, “mistress of all the gods,” and baniat awīlūti, “creatress of humanity” (Atrahasis 1. 188–260). Ugaritic texts refer to Asherah as qnyt.ʾilm, “creatress of the gods,” and mšnqt.ʾilm, “nurse of the gods,” in her role as mother goddess. A Carthaginian devotional text (KAI 89) dated to the 3d or 2d century b.c.e. contains the word ḥwt, which could be related to Hebrew ḥawwâ. It begins rbt ḥwt ʾlt mlkt. ḥwt could be the name of a female deity or an epithet of a goddess, possibly Asherah or Tannit. These two divine names can be identified as referring to the one figure. Of all the goddesses, she is most frequently given the titles rbt, “lady,” and ʾlt, “goddess.” If ḥwt is derived from a word for “life” or “to live” it is a fitting epithet for the mother goddess. These points suggest that the name given to the woman in Gen 3:20 could be a derivative of a title for the Canaanite mother goddess or at least an allusion to her.

Some scholars have pointed to the similarity of the name ḥawwâ to the Aramaic word ḥewyāʾ, “serpent.” In early Aramaic the word for “serpent” appears to be ḥwh. They have proposed that ḥawwâ was originally the name of an underworld goddess or that in an earlier version of Genesis 3 Eve and the serpent were identical. While this is conjectural, the possible connection of ḥawwâ to a word for “serpent” should not be overlooked. There is some tentative evidence suggesting a connection between the mother goddess Asherah/Tannit and serpents although the exact nature of the connection remains obscure. Both are strongly associated with fertility themes.

From this discussion it could be suggested that the name ḥawwâ in Gen 3:20 is meant to allude to the great goddess Asherah. The designation of Eve as the “mother of all living,” the presence of the motif of fertility, and the associations with the serpent and sacred trees all have possible counterparts in mythic material in which Asherah is mentioned. If such an allusion is intended, then we should note that the circumstances of the Gen 2:4b–3:24 narrative are the exact reversal of what one might expect in a story about the mother goddess. Rather than productivity and fertility, the outcome in the story in Genesis is death, sterility, and hardship (Gen 3:14–19). Even the “mother of all living” is to suffer in childbirth. The interaction between Eve and the serpent, also a symbol of fertility, ultimately leads to death. The man’s toil with the ground yields reward only at the price of pain and sweat. Thus Gen 2:4b–3:24 would seem to embrace a polemic against fertility themes of the Canaanite cult. This polemic, however, has been reworked by J so that now it forms part of the background of the story.

B. Theological Considerations

In Gen 2:20 it is stated that Eve is created to be an ʿēzer kĕnegdô, “a helper fit for him” (RSV). This expression has often been seen to indicate the subordination of Eve to Adam and hence generally of women to men in societal and family life. However, the word ʿēzer, “helper,” does not imply subordination. It can be used to refer to a superior person or even to God, e.g., Ps 146:5. The phrase ʿēzer kĕnegdô is best understood as meaning “a companion corresponding to him.” The fact that Eve is created second from one of the man’s ribs and that she is tempted and submits first have also been used to argue for either the superiority of men over women or of women over men. The former position has been strongly supported historically in the traditions of Judaism (e.g., Gen. Rab. 18.2), Islam (Al-Baghawi, Mishkat al-Masabih), and Christianity. The only references to Eve in the NT, 2 Cor 11:3 and 1 Tim 2:11–15, both develop this line. The argument can be traced to the present day. The latter position, arguing for the superiority of women over men, has been voiced more strongly recently but it had its early proponents, e.g., in the Talmud (Sanhedrin, 39a). In either case the arguments depend more on the presuppositions of the interpreters than on what the text of Gen 2:4b–3:24 states explicitly. The text in its original form is concerned about the potential for intimacy in the divine-human relationship and in human relationships in light of the alienation that exists in the world. The subordination of Eve to her husband (Gen 3:16) clearly stands as one of the curses of a broken creation.

Bibliography

Heller, J. 1958. Der Name Eva. AcOr 26: 636–56.

Joines, K. R. 1974. Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament. Haddonfield, N.J.

Kikawada, I. M. 1972. Two Notes on Eve. JBL 91: 33–37.

Pagels, E. 1988. Adam, Eve and the Serpent. London.

Phipps, W. E. 1976. Adam’s Rib: Bone of Contention. TToday 33: 263–73.

Trible, P. 1978. Pp. 72–143 in God and Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia.

Wallace, H. N. 1985. The Eden Narrative. HSM 32. Atlanta.

Williams, A. J. 1977. The Relationship of Genesis 3:20 to the Serpent. ZAW 89: 357–74.

Howard N. Wallace

Prince of Peace: Will the Followers Follow?

After Jesus spent a few years of public ministry proclaiming in word and deed a very different Good News than the Roman Empire and the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem, he was rewarded for his efforts with execution by crucifixion.  Such punishment for what both deemed insurrection was meant to deter would-be imitators who might consider doing the same.  The message they were sending was simple: go against Rome (or Jewish leaders), and you will suffer.  This mode of being flowed very naturally from an orientation of power and control.  Those in power (usually evidenced by might and money) keep it by demanding strict allegiance to their ideology.  Play by the rules and live, disobey and die.  The Romans created the greatest Empire of their time, and the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem knew the rules, played by them, and significantly benefitted from them (even if at the expense of those they were supposed to serve, which they rationalized away).  The lure of power and control usually wins.

After Jesus was experienced resurrected from the grave, how would his followers behave moving forward? Would they cower in the face of threat of death?  Would they simply stop the movement and go back to fishing or tax collecting or whatever they were doing before following Jesus?  Or would they alter their mission based on the resurrection, embracing a very different approach based on the victory of life over death?  Perhaps they would emerge as victors and wield their newly given authority over those who killed Jesus?

In the Bible’s book entitled Acts of the Apostles, written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke, we have a witness of what happened after the resurrection and the development of what would become Christianity (note: neither Jesus nor his disciples intended to create a new religion – they thought they were simply living out a new, reformed and refreshed version of Judaism). The happy surprise is that the disciples stayed on the same course they learned from Jesus.  The Good News stayed the same, essentially, despite challenging temptations that to some degree could have shifted the central message of Jesus’ grace for all approach.  The Prince of Peace remained even posthumously.

A follower named Stephen challenged the teaching of Rome and Jerusalem, proclaiming the Good News of Jesus, as was promptly stoned.  While his death surely created fear, it did not dissuade the earliest followers away from Jesus.

A devout, learned Jewish leader named Saul was given authority from Jerusalem to essentially hunt down Jesus’ devotees.  On his way to carry out his errand in the city of Damascus, however, the resurrected Jesus appeared to him as a blinding light, stopping him in his tracks.  The message Saul received was that Jesus was in fact anointed by God, and his message was true.  Everything for Saul changed that day, including his name – he would now be known as Paul, and his mission was to eventually carry the Good News beyond Jewish audiences into the rest of the world.  Paul’s ministry (which led to martyrdom), was one marked by peace as he proclaimed a radical grace for all.  Imagine what this shift entailed for him, moving from a position of power-based certitude to a more open trust in a God of love.

Peter, the infamous denier of Jesus, became one of the key leaders of the ongoing movement.  In a pivotal moment for him, Peter had to come to grips with his own prejudice and restrictive theology as he responded to a clear call from God to minister with a Roman Centurion and his household.  Frankly, he was really klutzy in his approach and delivery, yet the Good News broke through and the entire lot of them chose to devote themselves to following Jesus, marked by baptism.  Because the Spirit of God was so visibly present in the exchange, Peter could not keep himself from stretching himself and his beliefs.  When news of the baptism of such notable Gentiles made it back to the rest of the leaders, however, there was hell to pay.  Even among a group of people who walked with Jesus and witnessed the expansive love of God at work with so many who had been previously told they were not eligible for such grace, they themselves still had to grow with grace as the challenges came up.  Clunky as it was, they worked through the process.  In a critical general letter to all of the followers spread throughout ancient Mesopotamia, they came to the enormous insight that legalistic interpretations of the Jewish faith did not jibe with the teachings of Jesus, and therefore strict adherence to Law was not required.  Grace was the Way.

The last writings of the Jesus followers in the first century BCE come from John.  The Gospel bearing his name as well as his letter to the churches, and even his provocative Letter of Revelation give a glimpse to the shape of thinking held by these foundational believers.  Love and grace abound in his theological-historical remembrance of Jesus, and his letters followed suit, where he boldly asserted that God is love, and the true mark of God’s followers is the prevalence of love.  Like so many other Jesus followers, such a message got him in trouble.  Revelation was written from his perch in a penal colony on the island of Patmos.  The letter to the churches was meant as an encouragement to stay the Love Course, holding accountable churches that had strayed and celebrating those that stayed.  Many interpreters recognize that John was giving a picture of things that had already happened using imagery that would be understand by Jesus followers but not Roman authorities (who would dismiss it as prophetic hogwash).  The central thrust of the writing?  The love of God would prevail, and, in fact, already had.  The New Jerusalem emanating life and grace was open and available to all who would choose to enter, where life and healing would flow freely for all who would humbly choose it.

From the manger, throughout his life, enduring torturous death, and through resurrection where the Spirit of Life reigned free, Jesus was and still is the Prince of Peace.  His invitation to follow as embracers of such radical love still beckons to all and is no less challenging than it was originally.

The world always has been – and always will be – driven and guided by power and control where the strongest and richest win and command strict allegiance to their ideology (lest you pay the price).  The lure is incredibly tempting and easy to embrace.  The Church itself gave into it in the fourth century and only now is beginning to fully wake up to the mistake.  Once we think we have power and control, it is hard to make the shift toward truly trusting love and grace.  The everlasting invitation of Jesus continually calls for a humble walk as we love mercy even as we head toward justice for all.  

Faith isn’t about learning to toe the line. Faith is about walking freely in love and grace and seeing where it takes us.  Our inner fears caution against such foolishness, thinking love to be weak, when in actuality it is stronger than any other force on the planet and is the creative power of life itself.  Once embraced, the way we think about everything and how we live is illumined on every level, challenging everything from how we assess our success and manage our failures, to the way we raise our children, to our view of friendship and romantic love, to citizenship, to being part of a global community, to leaving a legacy – everything.  And the choice really does come down to what this Prince of Peace placed before us: are we going to live out of the fear-based modus operandi of power and control or the love-based Way of grace and freedom?

Prince of Peace: Pressure Cooker

It was time for Jesus to make his entrance into Jerusalem for the final showdown with the leaders of the Jewish temple who had become corrupt, controlling, and self-serving at the expense of those they were supposed to serve.  Jesus came to make his stand.  He had been prepared for this moment.  He was ready for everybody to see, yet again, what he was all about.  He prearranged transportation for his arrival.  Not a war horse, but a borrowed donkey.  Not a sign of bloody, violent conflict, but rather one of humility and peace.

Later in the week he had dinner with his disciples where he reminded them that it is incumbent upon disciples to follow in their leader’s footsteps.  He told them this immediately after he lowered himself to the position of a hired servant, washing their filthy feet as they squirmed in discomfort.  Around that Last Supper table with whom he broke bread was Peter (who would deny him three times that very night) and Judas (who would soon betray him into his adversaries’ hands).  Everything leading up to this moment was consistent with what he had been living and teaching, and everything that was coming for him would be, too.

Jesus knew he was sold out by Judas.  It would only be a matter of hours before everything was going to change.  For the worse.  He was stressed out.  He couldn’t sleep.  He prayed through the night until the temple guards arrived looking for him.  Peter reacted defensively, wielding his sword, whacking off one of the serviceman’s ears.  How would Jesus get out of this spot?  Would the other disciples do the same?  Was this going to be known as the Mount of Olives Showdown?  Would Jesus still maintain his peaceful posture when his life was threatened?

Stress can sometimes reveal our strengths and weaknesses that are otherwise not as obvious.  The above scene ended with Jesus telling Peter to sheath his sword along with a quip: he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.  Jesus then proceeded to heal the guard, reattaching his severed ear to his head.  Prince of Peace still…

Things didn’t get any better.  During an illegitimate trial, false witnesses were brought in to accuse Jesus of blaspheme.  Depending on which Gospel you read, Jesus was either silent or responded with comments designed to focus attention on the veracity of the statements and the trial itself rather than fight back defensively.  It didn’t turn into a shouting match.  With his attitude and behavior, Jesus kept his side of the street clean.  Things would likely continue to devolve, but only because of the religious leaders’ scheming.  He would maintain his posture of peace.

Facing Pilate, the Governor of the area including Israel, Jesus was brief in his responses.  Yet pointed. When he stated that his kingdom is not of this world, he was making plain that he did not believe Caesar to be the sovereign over the universe, and that the former was far more powerful and would far outlast the latter.  Pilate’s call to place the onus of the decision to crucify Jesus with the Jewish leadership suggests a couple of things.  First, that he didn’t care all that much who got killed.  Secondly, it shows that he really didn’t think Jesus was the criminal he was portrayed to be, which is why he washed his hands of the case. Jesus made very strong statements against Rome in his quiet way, and yet did not insult Pilate – otherwise he would not have excused himself from the process.  Once again, Jesus chose to operate in peace, nonviolently challenging the status quo.

We have no record of Jesus spewing insults or threats while he was severely beaten – way more than one headed to crucifixion would deserve.  He simply held his head up high as if to direct a spotlight on the injustice of his circumstances.  Even at the point of his greatest agony on the cross, he uttered love toward his mother as he asked his disciples to adopt her as their own.  Perhaps his most dramatic statement was focused on those who were responsible for putting him on the cross in the first place.  Instead of returning the dehumanizing behavior back at his assailants, he chose a nonviolent response that brought with it both accountability and grace: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Obviously, it is a prayer offering grace, a decision to do his part to end the cycle of violence.  And yet, at the same time, it carried a sting as it clearly implied that the Jewish leaders were ignorant, or defiant, in their violent actions.  This second part of the statement, stated as he was lifted above them on the cross, forced them to look up to him.  Like turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, and giving the shirt off one’s back, his behavior provided a similar result.  The oppressed one who was treated with inequality and inequity chose in his last breath to assert his humanity.

Three days later Jesus appeared in a mysterious resurrected form to the disciples.  Having endured death itself and now operating in a resurrected state that was unrecognizable and incomprehensible to his followers, he surely had every right to declare his disdain about how things transpired.  More, he could have surely made a lasting impression on the Jewish leaders who put him through hell or even Pilate who allowed it.  He could have, at that moment, called that legion of angels to take care of business.  But he didn’t, because that’s not the Way that brings peace.  In resurrection as in life, he operated from the same center and by the same rule.  Humble.  A lover of mercy.  And in his pastoral conversation with Peter (and eventually Paul), a pursuer of justice.  

As we celebrate once again the birth of Jesus, it makes sense to take a step back and not only commemorate the narratives of his birth, but to fully appreciate that narrative in context.  All the imagery of one coming in humility and peace provided and allusion to the life that would follow.  This Jesus came first for the lowest members of the society to proclaim Good News – God loved them and was really, really with them even though the circumstances and voices around them suggested otherwise.  Throughout his life he walked humbly as he promoted justice for all with a merciful, loving presence.  He was a man most everybody liked, except for those his truth challenged.  He invited all who would hear him to follow the same Way he was on, knowing that it led to life at its best for the most.  

Because of the way Jesus began, and lived, and died, we have a richer understanding of the power of love and grace.  We have a model of what other-centered living looks like.  We have seen the face of God, and it is love and forgiveness and kindness.  What began in a humility stayed humble and changed the way we think about everything.  This Christmas, may we all think long and deep about the person we are celebrating.  May such mindfulness inform how we treat those we know and love as well as those we don’t.  May our Christmas gift to ourselves and the world be a decision to follow in his footsteps and discover we have brought love and peace with us because, after all, the one we claim to follow is known as the Prince of Peace.

Prince of Peace: Live the Life

Last week we looked at the two birth narratives of Jesus found in the Bible’s books of Matthew and Luke.  The primary point I wanted to highlight was that the beginning of the Jesus’ life provided an allusion to what was to come.  His was not a “rags to riches” story, but a rags to rags to rags story.  His origin story was predictive of what was to come, as is the case to varying degrees for all of us.

Jesus’ parents, Mary and Joseph, are rightly celebrated for the role they played in the story.  Each in their own way were forced by their circumstances to choose a different path than they would have preferred.  The way forward required great humility, which is always an act of great courage as it necessitates a level of exposed vulnerability that forces a new perspective into being.  The baby wasn’t the only thing brought to life in this origin story.  A new way of thinking and being began as well, which lasted well beyond their check-out time from the makeshift barnyard accommodations.  The young parents were thrust into a way of life that continued to demand an open stance toward their future.  Nothing in the origin story was predictable except that their faith was going to be challenged in ways that instructed Jesus for the rest of his life.

Mary was simply invited to trust that God was with her from the beginning and would not leave.  Her song of response to the announcement-invitation of her unusual pregnancy is deeply inspiring and informative for anyone venturing into a living faith.  Joseph was invited to set aside customary expectations and embrace a different path that was marked by love and grace.  His initial decision to divorce Mary quietly, followed up with saying yes to God’s invitation to stand by Mary’s side and walk forward in love and grace at grace cost to his ego speaks volumes about who he was choosing to become. Combined, these two parents set the foundation for the development of the Prince of Peace that Jesus became.  In short, they both learned to live with a humble openness to the life God was leading them into, trusting that the Spirit of God was trustworthy and strong enough to bring about something greater than they could have possibly imagined.  Their lived faith is a picture of the real deal, and it surely was the greatest factor in Jesus’ development. 

Like we noted last week, there was no shortage of wannabe messiahs.  Longing for rebellion that would invite and ignite God’s power to restore Israel to glory was running at fever pitch.  Plenty of young Jewish men threw their hat into the ring to take on Rome.  They pretty much all endured the same future: they slowly died as they hung naked on crosses.  Spoiler alert – this is how Jesus died, too!  The rebellion he was punished for, however, was very different than that of his contemporaries.  His was marked by profound love and grace that promoted peace even as it challenged the status quo.  His was so radically different that when most people came to grips with what was being asked of them, they walked away.  Jesus didn’t call for people to take up arms to overthrow Rome.  He called people to live in response to the active Spirit of God who was and is always calling us toward a life of love and grace.  He learned well what his parents taught and took it further than anyone had seen.

One of the things that made Jesus such a standout was his view of humanity.  He really, really viewed everyone as loved children of God worthy of being treated with dignity and grace.  This is part of the reason he was so popular – he treated everyone with kindness.  He had the audacity to suggest that God loved people who didn’t feel like they were loved by God, and then backed it up with healing and forgiving sin.  Such a level of love and grace had not been seen like it before, really, and those who received it loved it!  You are loved like that – do you know it?  That message has never changed, and it never will.  The love of God is for you and with you regardless of your circumstances. It was true for tax collectors and prostitutes and lepers and foul-mouthed manly men and rich people and poor people and sick people and powerless people and powerful people and white people and brown people and… you get the idea.  Have you embraced it yet?  Have you really let it sink in?  It truly changes our lives when we do.  So please do it! 

Of course, one of the changes that God’s unconditional love fosters in our lives is exactly what led to a lot of people walking away both then and now.  We’re very welcoming of God’s love for ourselves and those we love.  But not for our enemies.  The most hated group of people in Jesus’ Jewish community were called Samaritans.  They were mixed race.  They believed differently about the faith than traditional Jews, and they returned the hate.  Jesus undoubtedly grew up fully exposed to such hatred.  The love of God transformed him, however, and he could no longer see them as anything less than loved by God, even when they treated him with disrespect.  That’s why Jesus made a Samaritan the hero of one of his best-known parables – it was meant to disturb deep, long-held, popular attitudes about people that we “okay” to hate.  When Jesus taught about this radical love of God and backed it up with his actual living, it really upset people.  It still does.  How do we know if this is happening for us?  Usually we know it when we are made uncomfortable as we think of certain others.  There’s plenty of offending to go around!  Who do you struggle to believe that God loves and is therefore worthy of being treated as if it were true?  People with a different political perspective than you?  People with different skin-tone than you?  Different language?  Different religion? Different culture? People who love differently than you?  The key word here is “different” (and has been the critical variable for all time).  We are more likely to like and love people who are like us, and less likely to like and love those who are different than us.  This is one of those areas, however, where we are invited to follow.  Will you trust like Mary and Joseph and Jesus that the Spirit of God is trustworthy?

Another thing that we at first love but then struggle with has to do with how we affect the culture around us.  We already know that many people were ready to go to battle with Rome.  Jesus was all for challenging those in power.  A major difference between Jesus and the other would-be messiahs was the approach to resistance.  The vast majority of others were in favor of violent rebellion.  Not so with Jesus.  He was nonviolent in his resistance, and brilliantly so.  Turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, and give the shirt off your back were statements Jesus gave as instruction for nonviolent protest – statements that today are interpreted very differently than in the first century.  As Ronald Sider notes in his book, If Jesus is Lord, what have become cliché statements for us were highly provocative moves in a Roman occupied Palestine:

     Jesus’s advice to turn the other (left) cheek conveys a surprising suggestion. Normally, an inferior would simply accept the insult (or on occasion fight back). But by turning the left cheek to the person insulting one, one almost forces the attacker to use his fist if he wants to strike again. (It is much harder to hit the left cheek with a back slap than with a fist.) The effect, Wink believes, is that the inferior person astonishes the superior by a dramatic act that asserts the inferior’s dignity, not by striking back but by forcing the attacker either to stop or use his fist and thus treat the inferior as an equal. Thus Jesus is urging a nonviolent but nonetheless activist response to evil. One cannot assert with certainty that this is Jesus’s intended meaning (45). But that conclusion is certainly plausible (65).

     The disgrace for nakedness fell not only on the naked person but also on those viewing the naked person (50). By stripping naked, the debtor exposes the cruelty not only of the creditor but also of the oppressive system the creditor represents. “The entire system by which debtors are oppressed has been publicly unmasked” (51). Rather than recommending a passive response to injustice, Jesus urges a dramatic nonviolent protest (66).

Jesus was definitely radical in his resistance, which is in part what led to his execution.  But his resistance was nonviolent.  Are we so inclined to do the same, or do we prefer what seems to be the more efficient approach of violent speech, attitude, and action?  Again, as Jesus followers wanting to honor his birth this December, we must ask ourselves if we actually want to follow this guy or not.  For some of us, it means getting off our butts and actually do something to bring about justice in an unjust world, especially for people that may be different than ourselves (whom we don’t understand and may dislike).  For others, it may mean that we need to love mercy as we pursue justice instead of mimicking the violent behavior that is all around us.

Jesus’ behavior still got him executed, but never defeated.  Rome may have remained as the reigning empire, but Caesar was not in charge.  The life and teaching of Jesus modeled what faith is supposed to look like, and delivered a life of hope, meaning, purpose, and love that prevailed regardless of the circumstances.  That way of living in faith still works today, and still promotes love and peace for all.  It is still unpopular as is it remains counter-intuitive and counter-cultural.  It challenges power at all levels and calls for humility.  It may even result in death of various sorts at the hand of those who are threatened.  And yet it remains the answer and hope of the world.  When we say yes to Jesus, when we accept him as the leader of our lives, we are saying yes to living in that way.  We are saying yes like Mary and Joseph said yes – not knowing exactly how things are going to roll out but trusting the heart of God to be with us, guiding us, holding us, providing life even in the face of death.

Prince of Peace: The Birth Narratives

If someone took on the task of writing your biography, what might they include about the early years in your family of origin that would inform the reader of what to expect as your story unfolded?  What from your past shaped you in ways that can be traced back to childhood?

I was born into a Dutch-and-German heritage middle-class home in Overland Park, KS, a suburb of Kansas City.  I was the youngest of four kids.  My parents were happily married (and still are).  Home was devoid of negativity for the most part, and was a calm, stable space.  I have no Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs).  My dad being a pastor, we never missed church, and we enjoyed the community we found there.  Faith was central to our lives and we practiced it religiously.  All six of us can sing well and can read music.  All six of us can play musical instruments, too.  Between us all we hold six Bachelors, three Masters, and two Doctorate degrees.  We all like each other (and our spouses and kids), and when we get together, laughter abounds.

Based on my family of origin story, what would you guess would be true of me as I grew up?

We need to think similarly about Jesus’ birth narratives.  The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are the only ones that give us such stories, and while they share some details, they are also very different from one another – they really don’t match up in some respects.  This very old truth comes as breaking news to many who have simply assumed that the stories fit together seamlessly.  If that’s your experience, don’t fret – the point of the birth narratives is to set us up for the rest of Jesus’ life, alluding in the beginning about things we will see again and again in his life, his death, and reflected in the lives of his followers.

The Jewish people living in what we refer to as Israel had been living under the thumb of foreign oppressors for centuries (with a short blip of independence before being pummeled once more).  At the time of Jesus’ birth, they were fully aware that they were no match for the Roman Empire, and were also aware that there was a degree of corruption at the top of their Jewish leadership.  They could count on Rome to be very Roman in their tyranny, and they could count on the High Priest and the Jewish elites in Jerusalem to look after their own wellbeing to the neglect of the poor, which comprised the vast majority of Jews (including Jesus’ family).  As one might guess, many of the everyday folks were enraged, and wondered if God would come to their aid as God had in their stories of old.  In their view, even a rag-tag pitchfork militia could defeat the military machine of Rome if God showed up.  As Ronald Sider fleshes out in his book, If Jesus is Lord (Baker Publishing Group, 2019):

The evidence is clear. From the time of the death of Herod I in 4 BC, there were repeated violent rebellions against Roman rule in Palestine. Both in Galilee and especially in Jerusalem, “revolution of one sort or another was in the air, and often present on the ground.” The sources often indicate a religious motivation. Frequently, N. T. Wright points out, these movements “were led by messianic or quasi-messianic figures.” And the Romans frequently squelched them with crucifixion. Violent messianic revolt, grounded in the belief that God would intervene to bring the messianic kingdom if the Jews would dare to rebel, was clearly part of Jewish life in this period. (37)

Historians provide evidence that there were many wannabe leaders around the first century BCE who claimed to be messiahs anointed by God to raise up an army of peasants to challenge the Empire.  Centuries-old prophecies were employed to encourage people to trust them (and God) to bring victory.  One after another were squashed by Rome, very often using the most horrific means of torturous and publicly humiliating form of execution ever exercised: crucifixion.  Stripped, beaten, and hung up to very slowly and painfully die, this means was meant to send a warning to every would-be messiah to come.  Yet the desire to overthrow Rome with some sort of violent uprising remained at fever pitch.

Imagine if this was happening all over again, and we were looking for such a figure today to lead us in some sort of military offensive to overthrow the Roman Empire.  What sort of person would help make the case for their designation as the anointed messiah?  What would you want?  I imagine we would look for someone who may have been born into a successful, strong family that had patriotic sensibilities, and even more, military heritage.  We’d want Grandpa to be a WWII hero, and Dad to have worked his way into the upper echelon of leadership throughout the Cold War, perhaps.  We’d want the child-messiah to be at the top of his class, a multi-sport gifted athlete, and an incredible musician.  (Well, I guess the musician part is wishful thinking for all performing artists everywhere…)  We would want to see this kid grow up and become the man that would make his dad and grandpa proud: a military standout.  This kind of beginning would signal to us that the one calling for our allegiance had everything he needed to lead the charge.  The childhood narrative of the leader would serve as an allusion to the adult he would become and the worldview that would shape his vision for the future.  I imagine that the first century Jews would be looking for something relatively similar.

Now consider Jesus’ birth narrative.  His mom was of no particularly impressive social status.  His dad was a carpenter – a day laborer – a loser by societal standards.  They made their way to Bethlehem (on/in a donkey/Chevy S10 not a horse/Hummer) for a census, but there wasn’t any room in any inn, and nobody would take them into their own home.  Think about that: a woman at 40 weeks gestation in a culture where hospitality is a core value, and nobody would welcome her inside?  The option the story provides: a shitty cave (vulgarity intended!) to be shared with filthy animals – could there be a worse setting for a distinctive birth?  Of course, there are other figurines in our Nativity sets: shepherds who were treated to a heavenly announcement about the child’s birth, and wise men from afar who saw a star signaling a new king had been born.  Both of these character sets would serve to validate that God was somehow endorsing this humble beginning. This narrative of humility and humiliation sets the stage for what is to come.

What are we to make of this?  Regardless of where you come down on the historicity of the story – that it is factually true because God wanted it to be so, or that the stories were fabricated to provide context for Jesus’ life – the truth of the story is clear: we’re not looking at a militaristic messiah when we read the Christmas Story.  Far from it.  As far away from it as one could get.  Have you ever given this any deep reflection?  If you were living back then, and you were hoping to violently overthrow the empire, how would this story inform your understanding of what Jesus was likely to become?  If his origin story serves as an allusion of things to come, would you want any part of him?

Being Change: Daniel 6

Pastor Pete began a series of talks he called Being Change six weeks ago.  He used the story of Daniel from the Jewish Bible as the story line to contemplate what Being Change might look like.  

It is the right story for Daniel’s homeland is devastated by the Babylonian army.  Everyone is exiled as slaves and separated to different regions of the empire. Kings often would look among the boys of the people they conquered to find the brightest to serve in their courts.  Daniel being good looking and intelligent was forced into the kings service. He experienced the humiliation of a name change and likely emasculation. Daniel would never see his family or homeland again.  Neither would he ever set foot into a Jewish temple or synagogue again.  

That was six weeks ago.  Today we catch up with Daniel.  He has served the Babylonian empire, but  Babylon has now fallen to the Persian Empire.  The Babylonian empire lasted 70 years so Daniel is an old man now.  So let’s pick up the story. Daniel always served with integrity. Each king valued him for his exemplary attitude, wisdom, intelligence and honesty.  Belshazzar promoted him to third highest in his empire and now Darius recognizing the same virtues intends to promote him over the entire kingdom.  

The politicians who served alongside Daniel were jealous and started looking for anything that they could find to bring against him.  Daniel’s service to the king and empire was impeccable. Aware that Daniel would not compromise his faith, a perfect plan was devised.  A law was crafted that would secure king Darius authority, boost his ego and put Daniel in a predicament.

For thirty days prayers could only be offered to King Darius.  Anyone defying the law would be thrown to the lions. Daniel does not protest, nor does he cave in.  He does what he always did. Went home and prayed three times each day. The trap worked, Daniel was sentenced to the den.  But the Lord is with him so he is protected from the lions.

That miracle is often the highlight of this story.  I’d like to ask another question and propose another point to the story.  The Daniel story is about when life is disrupted. It’s about isolation. I am wonder what sustains Daniel over 70 years enabling him to continue to Be Change?

“When Daniel learned that the decree had been signed and posted, he continued to pray just as he had always done.  His house had windows in the upstairs that opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he knelt there in prayer, thanking and praising his God.”  Daniel 6:4

Daniel spent regular time with God renewing his spirit and faith.  He listened for God’s voice and gave attention to the Lords character and ways for his life.  He experienced intimacy being known in his weakness and vulnerability. He was reminded that he was beloved in the Lord’s eyes.  He prayed for others; specifically finding forgiveness for those who conspired against him. And he remembered his hope. Looking toward the ruins of Jerusalem and the temple believing that the Lord as in the past would restore God righteous and just rule on earth.

Today is the first Sunday of Advent.  We continue the Danielpractice of looking back to the Lord’s faithfulness and forward with the expectation that God is bringing change and we are part Gods plan that Kingdom of God rule will be present in our lives and therefore in our world as well.

Being Change, Daniel 6

Handling the Sacred: Being Change Daniel 5

Ivern Ball was an amateur writer who created some memorable aphorisms, including:

·       Most of us ask for advice when we know the answer but we want a different one.

·       Knowledge is power, but enthusiasm pulls the switch.

·       Nothing makes your sense of humor disappear faster than having someone ask where it is.

·       The past should be a springboard, not a hammock.

·       Ever notice that people never say ''It's only a game'' when they're winning?

·       A good marriage is like a good trade: Each thinks he got the better deal.

·       These days, the wages of sin depend on what kind of deal you make with the publisher.

·       A politician is a person who can make waves and then make you think he’s the only one who can save the ship.

·       Most of us can read the writing on the wall, we just assume it’s addressed to someone else.

“The writing on the wall” is a phrase with biblical origins, coming from another story of Daniel-as-the-Jewish-hero as he interacts with King Belshazzar (Daniel 5).  In this tale, the king has thrown an enormous feast to showcase his immense wealth.  To show off a little more, he called for some specific items to be brought from his treasury: gold and silver cups taken from the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.  While he and his guests were drinking from the spoils of Babylonian conquest, a hand appeared out of thin air and wrote a message on the wall, which Daniel was called in to interpret since nobody else could (or would):

 “This is the message that was written: Mene, mene, tekel, and Parsin. This is what these words mean: Mene means ‘numbered’ – God has numbered the days of your reign and has brought it to an end. Tekel means ‘weighed’ – you have been weighed on the balances and have not measured up. Parsin means ‘divided’ – your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” – Daniel 5:25-28 NLT

That night, the king was murdered and according to the Book of Daniel, he was succeeded by Darius the Mede.  The writing was on the wall and it was addressed to him.

What was the big deal, here?  Why were his actions worthy of such a dramatic intervention by God?

The are a couple of things happening here.  The first has to be appreciated through the lens of context.  Remember that the Daniel stories were circulated and relished for hundreds of years before they finally came together sometime roughly a century before Jesus was born.  The entirety of that period of time for the Jews was under the oppressive power of a foreign empire.  They were never home in their own dwellings – they were never really theirs to enjoy.  They lived under constant threat, and were extremely poor.  The opening scene itself was offensive: the leader of the empire that controlled their land and stole their property was now using their former riches to throw a lavish party to which they were not invited where food and wine would flow from the endless resources of the king, while they lived in squalor and went to bed hungry.  Wealthy people treating the poor with indignity is a major foul in the Bible as it dehumanizes those who do not have the power to meaningfully object. Recall that in the previous story, Daniel encouraged King Nebuchadnezzar to turn from his wicked ways and show mercy to the poor.  The much-misinterpreted story of Sodom and Gomorrah was not a judgment related to homosexuality, but about hostile inhospitality and mistreatment of the poor.  Every poor, hungry Jewish person who hears the setting of this story already loathes the king – long before he calls for the silver and gold cups. 

This week, many of us will gather together for a Thanksgiving feast, where we will eat to the point of discomfort, throw out a lot of wasted food, and feast on leftovers until Christmas.  It is good to be with friends and family to pause and share love with each other and say out loud that we are grateful.  As we do, perhaps we can be extra grateful that we have more than enough food to eat, and maybe we can take an extra step and give toward an initiative that feeds those who aren’t so fortunate.  CrossWalk has two local initiatives that provide food for those who struggle – you can use this link to do that now.

The feast was bad enough.  Then the king added insult to injury by calling for the gold and silver sups used for ceremonial rituals from the Jewish Temple that the Babylonians destroyed when they wiped out Jerusalem.  Using these cups was a way to communicate to the world that they were, indeed, the victors, and that their gods were far more powerful than those whose idols were now in the hands of others.  Jews didn’t worship images, so they couldn’t do that, exactly.  The second best option was to misuse their sacred items as a means of desecration.  It was these two things that literally tipped the scales of judgment against the king: mistreatment of sacred people and symbols.

The writing on the wall were all words of accounting. Numbered.  Weighed. Divided.  Everything about the king was taken into account and viewed on a balance sheet.  He was found wanting so badly that his kingdom was liquidated.  Bummer for him.  What does this have to do with us, though?  The writing on the wall was addressed to the king, not to us, right?

I think we all need to read the writing on the wall and wonder if it could be addressed to us.  How are we treating the “sacred” around us?

People are sacred.  Our Jewish origin story-poem at the beginning of the Bible sets our thinking straight: all human beings are created in the image of God.  Sometimes we determine how we treat others with our own accounting system.  If we think they are unworthy of respect based on their actions, then we withhold it, and may even treat people in very disrespectful ways that dehumanize them.  This is a violation of a core principle in our faith.  People are sacred and deserve to be treated as such.  This doesn’t mean we’re doormats, but it does mean that there is a higher calling to follow regarding our interaction and treatment of others.  How will you treat the people you are with this Thanksgiving as sacred?  When you hear stories of other people, how will you choose to use speech and tone that is dignified and not demoralizing or dehumanizing?

How are you doing with sacred objects?  I think we struggle a bit with this one.  I wonder if those of us who have been brought up in church are numb to sacred objects because they were worshiped in some cases more than what they were pointing toward, which has left us empty and disillusioned with that which was once considered sacred.  Some churches try so hard to provide sacred space that they become silent museums instead of centers of life.  Communion in some churches is treated with such reverence that it’s a little spooky – I’m confident that’s not the vibe of the original partakers.  Sometimes it’s orthodoxy that becomes a holy cow that cannot be touched or challenged.  Why did we forget that men and their king put the early creeds together and are therefore necessarily open to ongoing review?  Was it because the Church said the creeds were sacred and therefore immune to revision?  Perhaps we have made our faith sacred in an untouchable way that has transformed it into an out of touch venture for many?  Has faith become less sacred for you because it has been so sani-sanctified in your past?

I am confident that 20+ years into the information age, we are learning that our access to absolutely everything has watered down our sense of the sacred where it really needs to be restored.  Pornography is a really easy target, of course.  My take is that the sexual revolution was, in part, a revolt against a Puritanical vision of human sexuality and a way overdue liberation of women as well.  The freedom to be who we are is wonderful, and the increasing equality is, too.  But we have forgotten that we are sacred, and some things are meant to be reserved for limited eyes to maintain that sacred reverence.  Simply because a person is willing to put their sacred bodies on display doesn’t make our gazing appropriately sacred.  Who are we as people of God?  How is our behavior informed along these lines?

Social media is benign.  But the freedom it has allowed for us to anonymously say unholy things to our fellow sacred human beings has caused great strife in our world.  Our US intelligence tells us that social media has been used to disrupt us as a nation, to pit us against each other.  Social media has been weaponized, allowing some to use it to dehumanize and defame entire sacred people groups.  How are we holding the line, choosing to treat others as sacred beings in the midst of temptation to do otherwise?

What other sacred “things” can you think of that we have not handled as such?

For most of us, when we realize that the writing on the wall is actually addressed to us, we will not likely experience the same fate as the king.  But that is not to say that mishandling the sacred is without consequence.  The truth is all of our actions have consequences.  When we mishandle the sacred, when we treat the sacred as not worthy of respect, it usually means more death and less life is fostered.  It often means people are wounded, relationships are strained, and we experience greater isolation.  Our lizard brains in their self-preservation mode may regularly opt for selfish behavior that does not even treat self as sacred.  This means we must read the writing on the wall regularly as a means of holding ourselves to account. The call of God runs deep, inviting us to discover our own sacred identity and help others find their own.  Investing in such a sacral venture tips the scales in the direction of flourishing life for all, which is truly our deepest dream because it is rooted in the source of life itself.  God is at the heart of it, with love emanating forward eternally, wooing us to see new words written and eventually heard: well done, good and faithful servant.

May this Thanksgiving be informed by reading someone else’s mail – King Belshazzar’s to be precise.  May the words deepen your Thanksgiving as you consider what and who is sacred, and treat them all with the reverence they deserve.

Notes for Daniel 5 (Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “The Book of Daniel,” In New Interpreter’s Bible, edited by Leander E. Keck, Vol. I–XII. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994–2004):

·       We are reminded of the exile by the gold and silver vessels taken from the Jerusalem Temple by Nebuchadnezzar. This is an important point. The Babylonian policy was to commandeer the religious icons or statues of the gods of the conquered people. In the case of the Jews, since no image of their God could be found in the Temple, the ritual vessels were taken instead.

·       Feasting was typically used in biblical narratives, especially post-exilic writings, to portray the abuse of power and privilege by the wealthy, and especially foreign monarchs. Taxes were paid in kind, and such great feasts would be resented just as much as the waste of tax money to fund government programs!

·       Whatever these words may represent in terms of a sequence of empires, all scholars agree that they are essentially monetary terms, denoting coins and weights. In fine biblical fashion, the obsessions of the empire (power and monetary gain, tribute payments and accounting) become the symbolic basis for judgment. The judgment takes place not so much in the courtroom as in the bank lobby! The place of judgment and the language used are significant. “Mene” is related to the term for “count,” and “Tekel” is related to “weigh.” “Peres” is an Akkadian loan word meaning “half-mina,” but it is taken also to mean “divide.” Thus the king has been counted and weighed in the balances (audited?), and has been judged at a deficit. In short, the interpretation of these words offered by Daniel 5 sounds like the activities of a countinghouse—weighing, counting, and dividing. This chapter, then, parallels the theme of chapter 4: Just as Nebuchadnezzar suffered the same fate he subjected the exiles to, so also Belshazzar will be audited in the midst of his wasteful, demeaning opulence.

·       Finally, Daniel 5 is a call to modern Christians to involve themselves in prophetic delivery of God’s judgment on the gluttony of the hundreds of “Belshazzar’s feasts” that have victimized so many people over the centuries. Perhaps it needs to be said that for many Christians who have been born to the privileges afforded by the dominant culture, such a prophetic task begins by excusing ourselves from Belshazzar’s table!

Being Change, Daniel 4: At Home

This week, we are looking at the story of another nightmare experienced by Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4).  Recall that the audience for the stories in Daniel were Jewish people who had been oppressed by one empire after another for over 500 years.  They did not have the military strength to overcome the regimes.  They fought back here and there, but could not sustain themselves in the face of the greater military strength which came against them.  How do people press on when their life experience feels like one attack after another, where there is little to no hope for seeing things turned around in the foreseeable future?  (See Psalm 137 for a sense of their anguish).  Such seasons of life come to all of us in one form or another, forcing questions that we otherwise avoid while in our comfort and ease.  Where is hope, really?  Who are we?  What are we really made of?  Who do we want to be?  Where do we put our trust?

The Jewish listeners no doubt took solace in the stories of Daniel, including this one, where the mighty King Nebuchadnezzar was given a warning-dream by God, the only one who could interpret it was the Jewish hero Daniel, and the truth of the dream came to pass just as Daniel predicted.  This story (and the others) would serve to give hope to the Jews in exile, who weren’t at home physically.  It reminded them to keep placing their trust in what they knew to be true about God, and who they were as God’s people.

I think this theme still plays today.  The world is – and always will be to varying degrees – one in which people of faith will not feel at home. There will always be those whose greed, self-centeredness, and desire for power will lead toward great conflict and pain in systems great and small.  In marriages, families, schools, churches, communities, states, nations – history is filled with ugly examples of humanity at its worst.  When we feel stuck in a moment we can’t get out of, we can feel drawn in a number of directions, including feeling absolutely hopeless and apathetic.  The Jewish people as a whole found strength in their faith, believing that even if life wasn’t treating them the way they had hoped, the God they believed in was still the source of life and hope (and not the Emperors who pretended to be God).  This informed their identity and their actions: who are we as people of faith?  They discovered that they could feel at home in their faith even if their circumstances were hostile.  Contemplative prayer is especially helpful in this regard, as it serves to ground us in the presence of God who is always seeking to heal, restore, and give strength for our respective journeys.  And it works.  There are simply too many stories of faithful people who, especially when facing their most challenging moments, were filled with the presence of God’s love and peace.  They may not have been where they wanted to be, and yet they were simultaneously at home in God.  If you are feeling particularly exiled, I hope you will join our Jewish ancestors in claiming anew your faith and the identity it brings.

Let’s turn our attention to the two primary characters and see what they can teach us.  Daniel once again modeled incredible grace as he courageously spoke truth to Nebuchadnezzar.  Of course, as he realized that the interpretation of the dream was bad news for the king, he was really wise to be gracious lest he lose he head!  In the Bible’s New Testament Letter to the Ephesians, we read in verse 4:15 that we are called, as mature and maturing followers of Jesus, to speak the truth in love.  Some days I am pretty mature.  Some days I am not.  Sometimes I am shocked at how quickly my maturity in Christ goes out the window.  How fun it could have been for Daniel to turn the dream into a “you’re going to get yours” moment.  But he didn’t.  Even with the enemy, Daniel chose to be graceful.  Jesus told us not just to love the people we easily love, but to even love our enemies.  This becomes an indicator of who the Jesus people are – they love even those who don’t “deserve” it, because everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.   Because this is who we are.  Do you have a conflict situation in your life?  How are you doing on this front?  Are you at home in the way you treat others whilst in conflict?

Obviously, the last character we face is King Nebuchadnezzar.  Once again, the megalomaniac found out he was wrong and eventually came around to honoring God (at least momentarily).  The dream, he found out, was a warning.  If he did not turn from his current path which was in contrast to the Way of God, things would go very badly for him.  Daniel begged, “King Nebuchadnezzar, please accept my advice. Stop sinning and do what is right. Break from your wicked past and be merciful to the poor. Perhaps then you will continue to prosper” (Daniel 4:27 NLT). Nebuchadnezzar didn’t heed the advice and instead lived out the dream.  He lost his mind and his freedom to continue the path he was on.  He was no longer at home, but in a wild place.  He was living an experience of what he had forced on countless others whom he exiled, living in bondage for seven seasons.  Seven, not an accidental or arbitrary number as it represents perfection or completion: he was in bondage for “enough” seasons for him to come to his senses.

Has anybody ever called you Nebuchadnezzar?  They could, because his is the human experience.  We may not get such a fancy dream and a Daniel to interpret it, but we get warning signs none the less throughout our lives that we can either recognize or not, respond to with wisdom or not.  Just like with some weird dreams that we might chalk up to spoiled food, we sometimes just don’t want to take the signs seriously.  To get back to the “at home” metaphor, sometimes we get so comfortable with our homes the longer we are there that we get used to things, put up with things, ignore things, and hope for the best.  But if we put off cleaning and maintenance long enough, we will find ourselves not at home like we once were, and our living conditions – the condition of our lives – barely livable.  Neb’s story offers a cautionary tale about heeding the warning signs.  Inherently, it offers hope as well, because Daniel’s encouragement meant that a course correction was possible for the king.  It is possible for us, too.  If you are not at home in your own body or life, the good news is that God is always on the side of our becoming whole, which is the fullest definition of the word salvation.  Free from the past – forgiven – and called to a new life.  Daniel would have applauded the Apostle Paul who wrote to a church that was tempted toward former ways of faith that leaned toward legalism instead of viewing life as a response to grace. Here are some words to that community (Gal. 6:1-10 NLT):

Dear brothers and sisters, if another believe] is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself. 2 Share each other’s burdens, and in this way obey the law of Christ. 3 If you think you are too important to help someone, you are only fooling yourself. You are not that important.

4 Pay careful attention to your own work, for then you will get the satisfaction of a job well done, and you won’t need to compare yourself to anyone else. 5 For we are each responsible for our own conduct.

6 Those who are taught the word of God should provide for their teachers, sharing all good things with them.

7 Don’t be misled—you cannot mock the justice of God. You will always harvest what you plant. 8 Those who live only to satisfy their own sinful nature will harvest decay and death from that sinful nature. But those who live to please the Spirit will harvest everlasting life from the Spirit. 9 So let’s not get tired of doing what is good. At just the right time we will reap a harvest of blessing if we don’t give up. 10 Therefore, whenever we have the opportunity, we should do good to everyone—especially to those in the family of faith.

This Jewish folktale has a lot to offer, doesn’t it?  Hope when you’re feeling oppressed, with encouragement to be faithful as a subtle means of standing against the oppressor.  Hope for how to speak truth to power – and to everyone else.  Encouragement to speak with grace even to our enemies.  And hope for when we begin to recognize the signs that our homes – our lives – need attention.  The hope is that the signs mean we have a window of opportunity to change our course.  We may need to go through some tough seasons to come to our senses – but that doesn’t mean health must allude us.  It might not always end how we want, but in choosing to be faithful, we maintain who we want to be.  Even if the circumstances won’t allow for more hospitable conditions, at least we will be at home with our whole, healthy selves.  In many cases, that is enough.

Being Change, Daniel 3

Being Change, Daniel 3

The story of Shadrach, Meschach, Abednego and the fiery furnace in Daniel 3 is popular.  It has been covered by some great jazz artists including Louis Armstrong, Ford Leary, Johnny Cash, and even the Beastie Boys!  Veggie Tales also worked the story into its vegetable platform.  It’s a cool story about a megalomaniac who wields his power in truly horrible ways, demanding those under his power to comply or die.  In this story, these three Jewish guys refused the mandate to honor a statue presumably made in King Nebuchadnezzar’s image.  True to his word, Neb stoked the fiery furnace and had the guys thrown inside.  Instead of becoming instantly incinerated, Neb himself looked inside and saw the three of them walking around with a fourth unknown person.  He had the guys dragged back out and to everyone’s amazement, there were no signs of fire on their persons – not even the smell of smoke!  Instead of being killed some other way, King Neb honored them and decreed that their god should be honored, and that those who defamed the Jewish god would be destroyed.  What’s not to like about this story?

While the sci-fi side of the story is really cool, what surely was more important for those who circulated the stories for centuries of oppression before they were written down was the faithful behavior of the three Jews who refused to honor the golden idol.  Their brief statement undoubtedly emboldened the hearts of those who recounted the tale: “If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire and out of your hand, O king, let him deliver us. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up” (Daniel 3:17-18 NLT).  I imagine the three words, “but if not”, were especially powerful as a model of unwavering faith.  It turns out that God was with them in the fire – their hope was not disappointed.  When they came out, they experienced yet another miracle: King Nebuchadnezzar reversed his position, making defaming the Jewish god punishable by death.  Faithfulness sometimes produces unexpected results.

In the United States, freedom to practice one’s preferred religion – the Christian religion more than others – is a constitutional right.  It is extremely unlikely that a person will be killed in the United States for worshipping in a Christian way.  And, since the dominant theological language and paradigm in the US is Christian, expressing the Christian faith will likely not be met with much worse than indifference.  God is referenced – usually in a Christian way – by politicians in a variety of settings, and Christian symbols and statements are everywhere.  Since some of the earliest settlers in what would become the United States were leaving European religious intolerance behind, and founding their colonial life on Christian principles, many believe that the United States is a Christian nation.  Yet this is not the same as being a people truly guided by the Rule of Christ, evidenced by an ethic and ethos resembling Jesus’.

Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego had the “luxury” of a completely obvious choice to make between their Jewish faith and the order of the king.  To honor the mandate would be in direct violation of one of the Ten Commandments!  No subtlety here!  In the United States, it’s not always so obvious.  In fact, I would suggest that it is sometimes very difficult to know that we are being wooed into honoring false idols at times because the US has been so closely associated with Christianity, and blessing has been invoked even for things that are anathema to God – and then God is worshiped for the very thing I do not believe God desired or was involved with in the first place.  The US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan which served to end war with that country.  Is there anything “Jesus” about wiping out tens of thousands of innocent lives?  I know, this is a pretty easy one to pick on, and yet my experience is that we as a culture are more prone to celebrate our military might than lament the horrible amount of pain, suffering, and death we have inflicted – even if in the name of peace.  There are other easy examples from the past, of course, which include the mistreatment of Native Americans, American enslavement of people from Africa, Japanese internment camps, lack of child protection, lack of women’s right, lack of civil rights – it’s a long list of infractions.

The violations against the Way of Christ are not only in the past.  They are very present.  They confront us every day on a personal, community, and national level.  The three Jewish men were clear on what they believed and what it meant for what they would and would not do.  They believed it so strongly that they were willing to stay faithful even if it cost them dearly.  Do we know what we believe so well as to recognize when we are being tempted to honor something contrary to our faith?  Are we so passionate about our allegiance to God that we would be willing to pay a significant price for not bowing down to the idols worshiped on our culture? As biblical scholar Daniel L. Smith-Christopher notes:

Christian faith involves the refusal to bow before the golden statues of Nebuchadnezzar. But what is critical in the modern era is the realization that in our time Nebuchadnezzar is now perfectly capable of building his statues with the face of Jesus—evil appears as an angel of light. (E.g., a U.S. nuclear submarine capable of dozens of Hiroshimas was named Corpus Christi, “the body of Christ”!) For Americans who believe that they live in a “Christian” country, it is far too easy to accept political or economic policies that involve bowing to golden statues in the name of national interests. The bombing of Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War resulted in thousands of civilian deaths and continued to wreak havoc for the poor of that society years after the cease-fire through the destruction of a vital infrastructure for distribution of medical supplies, food, water, and other essentials of peaceful existence. Yet, the bombing was accompanied by a political rhetoric of “faith and patriotism” that played as sweetly on international television as did Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra. But the Christian is called to resistance, and to “atheism” in the face of all false gods. If chapter 1 was a call to resist the enticements of the king’s food and wine, chap. 3 is just as clearly a call not to lose heart before the sight of the monumental self-importance of the conquering regime, both then and now. Modern Christians ought to refuse all attempts to serenade violence and exploitation with the tunes of patriotism. It is precisely the responsibility of Christians to point out the falsehoods of using Christian symbolism and language to defend exploitation and military brutality. The beginning of that task, however, is for us to refuse to be moved by the music of national interest. Mishael, Azariah, and Hananiah, then, are Hebrew apostles of a radical faith that is, at the same time, a political atheism. (“The Book of Daniel,” In New Interpreter’s Bible, edited by Leander E. Keck, Vol. I–XII. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994–2004)

Where does your primary allegiance lie?  The United States?  The US military?  Donald Trump?  The GOP?  The DNC?  How do you determine your stance on the following issues: immigration, Black Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter, LGBTQ rights, health care, fender equity and equality, prison reform, global warming, income inequality, public education, taxation, prison reform, housing affordability, civility, – what would you add to the list?  What about on the personal front – what informs your decisions about what you do with your time, money, voice, passion, etc.?  In all of the above, if we call ourselves Christian, how do we know we are being faithful and not simply adopting a sort-of-Christian-sounding-but-not-much-like-Jesus alternative?  These are things to think about for the duration of our lives. 

Thinking about such things, and allowing our attitudes and behaviors grow from such reflection actually make a difference, too, both personally and on the larger scale.  Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego’s nonviolent response led to significant political change.  Nebuchadnezzar not only backed down from his edict – he came to the defense of the Jews!  I wonder if we are aware of the potency of being faithful in a nonviolent way.  As Ronald J. Sider notes in his book, If Jesus is Lord (Baker Publishing Group, 2019): “A recent scholarly book examined all the known cases (323) of both major armed and unarmed insurrections from 1900 to 2006 and discovered an amazing result: ‘Nonviolent resistance campaigns were nearly twice as likely to achieve full or partial success as their violent counterparts’” (25).  Because we live inside and are guarded by a global superpower which protects itself with super power, we can be very easily tempted to believe that more violent forms of power is the only way to affect change.  Our national political culture certainly believes so, as violent language and chest-puffing prevail.  Many sociologists believe that the significant uptick in hate speech in the United States is in part due to the normalization and consequent legitimization of derogatory speech from our top leaders.  Hate has been popular-rised.  Yet many people claiming to follow Jesus fail to do so when it comes to standing with and for those on the receiving end of such violence. Instead, many Christians – even high profile leaders – are silent as they turn a deaf ear on rhetoric that disparages people rather than honors.  This is a direct contrast to the way of Jesus, and suggests that a golden idol of sorts, perhaps in the shape of an elephant or a donkey, has won allegiance over God.

I wonder who might be a modern-day Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego?  I wonder who might be willing to declare their allegiance to God even if it results in significant personal sacrifice?  I hope I might be more like them than not.  I hope the same for you, too.  For the sake of our own faith.  For the sake of our nation.  For the sake of the entire world which God loves.

Being Change

Daniel 2

On October 31, 2019, I completed 20 years of service as Pastor of CrossWalk Community Church.  I celebrate that as a pretty big deal for anyone in any organization.  I am very grateful that CrossWalk has taken time to celebrate this with me and for me and for each other.  I know that this is, in itself, a gift, as there are many who pass major milestones with no recognition whatsoever.  Thank you, CrossWalk!  The median tenure for pastors at one church has risen some over the last 20 years.  It used to be around 4 years, but now it’s 6years.  The increase likely stems from a range of factors that make a lot sense: younger pastors are not driven by the “climbing the corporate ladder” temptation; Boomer pastors are staying longer for multiple reasons; pastors are sensing a call to a community (not just the church); and pastors stay if they are being cared for.  As I reflect a bit today, I want to say first that I am so grateful for my wife who has supported me in my role from day one, even if she didn’t want to move across the country.  She has been a great asset in each of my 20 years here, usually serving behind the scenes in our Children’s Ministry, but also with bringing her touch to beautify our facility.  Being a pastor’s wife is a very complex role that most people really don’t fully understand.  Being an introvert who doesn’t like to be in the spotlight makes her role all the more challenging.  Yet, in spite of all of that, she has been faithful to me, she has served the church consistently, and she has represented CrossWalk with dignity, grace, and class.  I am so grateful for her, and for my kids who she has loved with great passion and presence.

Secondly, I am so thankful that CrossWalk has supported me in so many ways over so many years.  Many of the perils that pastor families face did not happen as much for us, in part because of the love of this congregation toward my family. We have been through more change in 20 years together than any of us could have possibly imagined on every front.  Some changes have been more welcome than others.  I am at times amazed that we are not just still alive but are really healthy and poised to handle the future as best as we can imagine.

The folklore-laden story found in the Book of Daniel (Chapter 2)  actually provides an interesting metaphor for me to reflect on and teach at the same time. King Nebuchadnezzar was haunted by a dream he couldn’t shake.  In that time and place, some cultures believed that evil forces used dreams to taunt and torture people.  He sought the help of his international team of advisors to make sense of it, but with a twist: to test their capacity as seers, he refused to tell them the details of his dream – they had to both recount the dream and interpret it.  If they failed, they would be put to death.  This speaks to the humanity of the king, which I relate to a lot.  The dream ended up being a warning about potential things to come beyond his reign.  The image of the statue communicated that things were going to get worse and worse, and finally be completely destroyed by a wrecking-ball stone from God – going against the flow of the Spirit catches up with us.

Nebuchadnezzar, Megalomaniac.  Neb was reacting out of fear at the outset of this story.  Fear of the unknown, fear of whatever his imagination was running away with, fear of destruction, failure, and lots of other stuff every human being faces.  In his fear, he didn’t operate optimally.  He wasn’t thinking straight, he didn’t treat people as good as he should, and he added to the chaos he was trying to quell.  This has certainly been true of me over my career.  Most of the time I’ve hidden it pretty well (I am an Enneagram Three after all!), but there have been moments when my fears have bested me.  Like Nebuchadnezzar, I was not as graceful, loving, present, open, appreciative, receptive, and professional as I would have liked.  The downside of being a “3” is that I ruminate on such things – I see them as failures instead of simply part of being human.  So, if you’ll allow me, I want to apologize for missing the mark here and there in ways that certainly impacted our organization, and perhaps you personally.  If we need to talk about specifics so that I can more fully understand how I may have hurt you, let’s make it happen.  I know that Neb wasn’t much for admitting he may have made mistakes – megalomaniacs don’t admit wrongdoing and don’t apologize for anything as it takes away from their sense of having absolute power and control.  So, the good news is I guess I’m not a megalomaniac!  And to insure that none of us are, it’s good to ask questions about our attitude and behaviors, to examine ourselves regularly to wonder about what may be motivating us.  How and when do you do this?  How do you stay in touch with yourself?  How do you course-correct when needed?  How do you own your junk and clean up the relational damage caused?

The Statue: Fixed or Flexible? I can also relate to the dream Neb had of that statue representing a potential future.  The writer of Daniel was doing so with the advantage of being well beyond the actual date of this exchange – perhaps well after it had all come to pass.  I was invited to be pastor of this church because I had experience and passion to help churches that were struggling come alive again.  Churches that are barely making it don’t get to that place overnight.  There are systems that develop over time that move organizations toward failure and death.  The good news is that systems can be changed which will also potentially change the future.  I was invited to come lead this church out of a death dive that was looming and was given authority to do whatever was needed.  I really had no idea how hard it was going to be on the church and on myself.  Back then, the church was comprised primarily of the older faithful members who had weathered incredible storms faced by this church,  good people who were willing to entrust a guy young enough to be their grandson with the keys to their Cadillac.  I always believed in our potential.  I believed in the decisions we made along the way, and for the most part, they paid off.  I am grateful for those saints who are no longer with us who were so supportive during their last season.  I think about how incredible it is and was that they chose to welcome change when so many others at that stage in life much prefer what is known and comfortable.  I think the challenge of leadership is to look forward and make decisions that are going to keep things on the “golden” side rather than the untenable mix of “clay and iron” that leads to destruction. 

This is no small challenge in an age when the Church is seeing unprecedented decline in our country, largely, in my opinion, because of poor modeling of Jesus by the Church!  Statistically, the job of pastor commands just a little more respect than being a used car salesman.  Times are a changing…  I celebrate what we have before us now.  A church that is deeply valued and recognized in Napa for all she does to serve Napa.  I believe CrossWalk is incredibly well positioned to both continue to serve Napa well and continue to be on the leading edge of working out what it means to be a faith community in ways that resonate with those who gave up on the Church.  While we must constantly stay awake to where we are and where we are going, we have pulled out of the death spiral and are in a great space to keep moving forward.  God is moving in powerful ways here, ways that are largely not understood by Church culture.  We’re doing our part to do incredible good empowered by the Spirit of God.  On a personal level, I think it is a good thing to be aware of where we are in our personal lives, taking stock of the trajectory we fin ourselves in.  Are we doing things that ensure that our relationships are healthy?  Are we doing things personally to make sure we’re a healthy part of any relationship? Are we aware of systems we are part of – and helped create – that need changing lest we find ourselves in holistic decline?

Daniel, MDR. Another facet of the story I relate to is Daniel’s extremely daring and courageous move to demand audience with the king who had recently order his death, to ask for the very same thing that had already been refused for the other seers.  Daniel recognized a terrible injustice was about to go down, and he couldn’t stand for it.  Using my voice for those who aren’t heard has been a part of me as long as I can remember.  Most of the vocalizing has been in my context of church – encouraging new thinking related to those who have been marginalized and quieted – women, divorcees, the abused, the LGBTQ community, the extremely poor, the hungry, the refugee.  Standing up for people is daring because it is catalytic: we often don’t see things that are right in front of us unless we are caused to.  When the thing to see is unflattering to ourselves, we generally dismiss it, deny it, and defend ourselves against association with it.  Throw in some “God is against it” horsepower to fuel prejudice and it becomes a mountain to overcome.  This is the work of Jesus, you know, and therefore, as Jesus followers, it becomes our work, too.  It got Jesus in a lot of trouble throughout his ministry.  He had a megachurch until he told the large crowd what it actually meant to follow him – they walked away at that point.  Eventually, Jesus’ “being change” led to his demise.  When we stand with and for those among us who need justice, equality, equity, and dignity, we are poking bears.  If we dare calls ourselves Jesus followers, however, the choice is made.  Courage required.  We will keep poking…  To take this home a bit, perhaps it is a good idea to ask ourselves how we are being part of the solution to the problems in our world rather than a part of the problem.  We may not feel like we are part of the problem, but I would suggest that if we are not doing something to understand and in some small way engage the issues of our day in a Jesus kind of way (for Christians), we are essentially silently complicit with the troubles that ail us.  Might I suggest that you identify a few issues that perhaps bother you in our culture and choose to learn more about the issue in its complexity?  Perhaps simply gaining greater understanding might in itself be the beginning of seeing a new future for your role as a change agent?

Daniel, PsyD. The final aspect of the story with which I resonate has to do with managing dreams.  Knowing what the dreams are and being able to interpret them is a part of our grand calling as people of faith.  While no large formal studies have been done comparing the dream themes of people of different socio-economic positions, there have been some observations.  The extreme poor in our world dream of winning the lottery, feasting at a grand banquet, and living in a magnificent home.  Surely this is in part related to the fact that money, food, and safe shelter are in short supply for the extremely poor.  Those who are doing better financially yet recognize that those in power are controlling the system to keep themselves on top dream of varying degrees of revolution where those in power are removed.  Perhaps this dream theme is born out of the injustice they know they are experiencing?  The Great Recession we recently experienced was caused by the wealthiest 1% in our country who were doing illegal things to increase their wealth at the expense of the other 99%.  Effectively, none of them went to jail for the immeasurable harm their greed caused.  That’s injustice.  Those in power have nightmares about losing what they have, no doubt because they are aware that they “have”, especially in light of the “have nots.” Daniel’s ability to articulate specifics about Neb’s dream and interpret it correctly stood in contrast to other seers from other traditions who failed, and thus made Jews feel affirmed in their faith even when oppressed. 

The Spirit of God is with and for the deepest dreams shared by all human beings – that we would experience an abundance of life, that we would all be able to flourish.  The specifics may change with context, of course, but this core theme is a golden thread that unites us all.  As agents of God, we are given the wonderful opportunity to speak these dreams into the lives of people who perhaps gave up on dreaming. We get to speak greater dreams into people’s lives than they may have previously imagined.  More than that, we are also given responsibility and authority to help people move forward in realizing those dreams.  Jesus is one who experienced a life of abundance, a flourishing existence even though he lived under the oppression of the Roman Empire and a power-hungry religious elite.  In following in his footsteps, we discover how to live into the dreams that reside deep within us.  Dreams come true – bigger dreams than we imagined – of hope, joy, and love despite the harshest of circumstances.

I had a dream of what this church could become when I started 20 years ago.  I am so happy to tell you that it did not come true!  If it had come true, we would have simply been a big church with lots of people coming on Sundays.  That’s a typical dream held by pastors.  It’s wonderful for egos.  But it is and was a very small dream.  We made a range of decisions that pretty much guaranteed that that would never happen.  I am so glad a much bigger dream began to emerge – we tripped into it, really.  Or were wooed into it by the love of God.  The dream was one that would create a CrossWalk where all are welcome – “Everybody. Always.”  The dream was that we would be known for our genuine love of the community expressed through radical hospitality – sharing our “home” with as many as we are able to sustain.  The dream required a shift in theology toward an open, relational approach that provided space to think differently about God and the Bible.  The dream would lead us to champion the cause of those who needed our presence and our purse alike: voiceless poor and abused, and people who have been on the receiving end of prejudice right here in Napa and across the world.  What dreams have you had that are probably better left unfulfilled?  What are the deepest dreams in your being?  I bet they have a lot more to do with experiencing deeper meaning, love, and joy than simply bigger barns to put more stuff.  How are you managing your own dreams? How are you speaking hope into the lives of others who may have given up on dreaming, even though our deepest dreams can be realized to some degree despite our past – because love is free and always in abundance if we’ll tap into it.

Who knew Daniel’s second chapter would have so much to offer for our processing where we are and where we’re going?  May it stick with us.  May we remember our potential to give into egocentric Nebuchadnezzar tendencies.  May we be cognizant of the way we are living and leading now with an eye on the future so that we keep things golden (or at least silver).  May we stand for justice when we see it threatened even if it requires great risk and therefore great courage.  May we be dream proclaimers in a world that longs for bigger dreams, and may we be dream realizers as we model and announce the Good News that God is with us, in us, and guiding us toward abundant, flourishing life for all.

Being Change: God Can't Save the World Without Us

When I was a kid, I remember being taught about Paul Bunyan.  Do you?  Statues of Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox can be found in different parts of the country, the oldest being in Minnesota.  Have you ever visited one of those statues?  What do you remember about Paul Bunyan?  Check out this video for a refresher.

Why do we have Paul Bunyan stories?  Why do we tell the stories to children?  He was not an historical figure, after all – so why get so much attention?

Paul Bunyan’s stories are an example of American Folklore.  The stories are of historical interest because of their enduring popularity which also shed light on the aspirational values espoused by the those who created and shared the stories.  Paul Bunyan stories were more than entertainment around a logging campfire – he was a reminder of the American spirit and therefore an inspiration to follow, all offered in a memorable, fantastic package.

There are stories in the Bible that work the same way.  The first six chapters of the Book of Daniel are looked upon by leading scholars as Jewish folklore – the factuality of whether or not a literal Daniel and his friends existed is not really where the power of the story lies.  One scholar notes:

“Although some of the court details seem, at first sight, to be impressive, most scholars argue that the Daniel stories as well as the stories of his friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are fictional accounts that represent the folklore of the diaspora communities. Furthermore, these details are something that a healthy imagination could create, drawing from the gossip and speculation of the surrounding peoples under Persian occupation. There was similar speculation about the pomp and circumstance of the Persian court among the Greeks as well” (Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “The Book of Daniel,” In New Interpreter’s Bible, edited by Leander E. Keck, Vol. I–XII. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994–2004).

This may be disturbing for some readers who have been taught to believe that the stories in the Bible – if they are not clearly labeled as parable – must be factually accurate.  That perspective is historically new, however, and does not reflect the earliest understanding of biblical texts held by our Jewish ancestors generally and Jesus specifically.  The real power of the stories we will look at over the next several weeks is not about God miraculously saving people from burning alive in a fiery furnace or from hungry lions, or about dream revelation and interpretation.  The stories didn’t resonate with the earliest Jews for that reason, but for quite another: subversion.

While the context of the Daniel stories in chapters 1-6 places him centuries before the birth of Jesus, the stories actually circulated and developed throughout those centuries and finally became organized a century or so before Jesus was born, when the Roman Empire was gaining control of the Mesopotamian region.  What we think of as Israel today was a piece of land that ran with blood throughout its history.  Once scholar estimates that somewhere around 200 wars took place on its soil during the time the Jewish people lived there before the Common Era. The stories in Daniel resonated with the Jewish people because every storyteller and hearer only knew what it was like to live in an occupied land.  For hundreds of years, the name of the empire changed from the Assyrians to the Babylonians to the Persians to the Hellenists and finally to the Romans.  Israel was an organized, unified country with clear governmental structure for fewer years than the United States has survived.  There were only a few kings who presided over the unified nation before it divided and eventually fell apart.  The Book of Daniel was popular – and subversive – because it shared stories of how to live in occupation while honoring their culture and religion and challenging their oppressors.

The first chapter tells the story of how Daniel and company got to the foreign kingdom in the first place – they were removed from Israel!  Exiled.  Not their choice.  Once in the new land, they were put through a program which sought to erase their sense of identity as Jews while giving them new identities to go along with their new zip code.  Thus, they were given new, non-Jewish names.  These are not cool new nicknames – this is removing their very names, similar to what took place in American slavery.  Sometimes the occupation empires are cast in a favorable light which may give a false impression that being in exile isn’t so bad.  That would be a mistake.  The stories we will explore are life-and-death-on-the-line stories.  Those in exile have no rights – their lives hung in the balance.

The first act of non-violent resistance we encounter in the Daniel tale has to do with his diet.  He refused to eat the food provided by the court because it apparently violated his faith commitment (pulled pork sandwiches, perhaps?).  Refusing to eat was to risk his life.  He asked for a trial period to see if his diet would produce better health performance results than the local fare.  It turned out that it did.  Daniel’s diet won the day.  This may seem innocuous to our eyes, but it wasn’t.  This was an act of defiance, an act of rebellion, and in this case the powerless Jew outsmarted the Babylonians who held all the power.

Most of those who are reading this are not in an exile like that experienced by Daniel.  We have not been forcibly removed from our homes and taken to a different land and required to abandon everything we hold dear – even our names – and required to embrace a new culture.  Yet we can still relate to Daniel because when we choose to follow Jesus, we follow him into a type of exile.  The exile isn’t anywhere near as harsh as that experienced by our faith ancestors, but ours, like theirs, requires us to be thoughtful about the choices we make as people living in this world but not of this world.  The Way of Jesus is different than the dominant culture in which we live.

My guess is that there are some attitudes and behaviors that have crept into your life that you know don’t really fit with Jesus’ Way.  Can you name them?  I am certain that all of us who have been born and raised in the United States have adopted some “isms” that don’t fully fit with the ethos of Jesus.  Capitalism.  Consumerism.  Militarism. Racism. Sexism. Classism. What other “isms” would you add?   These are often unchecked, and we end up looking more like the “isms” than we do Jesus.  We typically don’t check them unless something bad happens that wakes us up or when we choose to actually study the Way of Jesus and adopt it.

Here’s a challenge for you: for the next week, drop at least one the attitudes and behaviors you know are incongruent with the Way of Jesus.  Be aware of what makes the dropping difficult – what pressures are keeping you stuck in unhealthy patterns?  What will replace what you’ve let go?  Some of the things you will drop are heavily supported by our culture – especially things related to consumerism.  We are constantly barraged with commercials encouraging us to buy new stuff and eat unhealthy stuff all the time.  Record your experience so that you can learn from it.  Are you up for this subversive Daniel challenge?

Check out this interview with Tracy Lamb who has been the Executive Director of NEWS for nearly fifteen years. What a great service they provide an incredible vulnerable segment of our community!

God Can't: God Needs Our Cooperation

Thomas Oord’s book, God Can’t, has taken us on a journey that has helped both deconstruct some unhelpful and probably unexamined theological beliefs, and has also served to offer insight into new ideas that work toward reconstructing a sound theology as it relates to God, free will, determinism, and evil in the world.  Oord has encouraged us to embrace the following ideas: God can’t prevent evil singlehandedly, God feels our pain, God works to heal, and God squeezes good from bad.  In conclusion, Oord addresses one last piece that we need for our reconstructive purposes: God needs our cooperation.

This concept may make us extremely uncomfortable if we hold a belief that keeps God powerful in the sense that God doesn’t really need anyone or anything to do whatever God wants to do.  We may be more comfortable with the more popularized concept that God invites us to cooperate, which is quite different.  Oord notes:

Many people accept the less radical form of this fifth belief. It says God invites us to cooperate with God’s work to promote healing, goodness, and love. We can participate in God’s plan to make our lives and the world better… The more radical form says God needs us and others for love to win. Our contributions are essential to establishing overall well-being. Without cooperation, God cannot attain these positive outcomes. Creatures play a necessary part in God’s goals to restore creation and help us all flourish (Oord, God Can’t, 95).

Oord understands this cooperative dance with God as indispensable love synergy:

Indispensable love synergy. Synergy means energies or actions working together. It comes from the Greek word synergeo, and biblical writers use it to describe creatures working with God. Indispensable indicates that God requires creaturely cooperation for love to reign. Neither God nor creatures generate positive outcomes alone. The “love” in “indispensable love synergy” identifies God’s way of working and how we must respond to experience true happiness. God needs our positive responses to foster flourishing… Not even God can save the world singlehandedly… Indispensable love synergy implies that what we do matters. Really matters. Our lives are not extraneous; our actions are consequential. We make an ultimate difference — to ourselves, to others, and to God. Our lives and actions count! (95-96)

If we have eyes to see this, we realize this is the dominant reality throughout the Bible.  Even in the Jewish myth of Noah and the Ark, God doesn’t drop a container ship out of the sky ready to load up the animals.  Throughout the Bible people experience the nudge of God to move forward with what God is doing.  God needed Abraham to move away from his homeland to what would become Israel in order to create a new faith community and people.  God needed Moses to go back and challenge Pharaoh.  God needed Joshua to lead the charge into the Promised Land. Fast forward: God needed Jesus to say “Yes!” countless times to communicate, model, and embed the Good News with those he encountered.  God needed the disciples to do the same to move the Good News from a very localized Jewish movement to a global, multi-cultural phenomenon.  Oord notes, “Indispensable love synergy says creatures must cooperate with God for love to reign. My friend Nikki nicely sums up what’s at stake: ‘If God needs me to co-labor with God’s loving plan, then the people around me literally need me to act. They need me to do what God wants done to bring about peace, harmony, justice, etc.’” (104).

Because God’s love is uncontrolling, and because God is Spirit, God needs physical people with hands and feet and mouths and wallets with open minds and hearts to follow God’s lead.  How do we foster cooperation with God in indispensable love synergy?  Oord:

The psychologist-theologian Mark Gregory Karris captures the meaning of love synergy when he talks about “conspiring prayer.” In this form of prayer, “We create space in our busy lives to align our hearts with God’s heart, where our spirit and God’s Spirit breathe harmoniously together, and where we plot together to overcome evil with acts of love and goodness.”… Karris says the traditional view of petitionary prayer considers God the sole agent of change. It’s like rubbing a rabbit’s foot and hoping something magical happens. “The petitioner believes that if she prays hard enough and with the right words along with the right behavior, God will, without any cooperation from other agencies, instantly fulfill the request.” By contrast, says Karris, conspiring prayer “is a collaborative dialogue, a friendship, a two-way street, an intimate dance between lovers…” When I pray, I share my worries, concerns, requests, and more. I “listen” for a still small “voice,” believing that although I may be mistaken, that “voice” may be God calling me to love a particular way. I ask God how I might play a role in establishing compassion and justice in the world. I thank God for working beyond my small sphere of influence. And I often commit to imitating the loving ways of Jesus (105).

I appreciate Oord noting that he may get it wrong.  Truly, we all have the capacity to both get it right, kind of right, and really wrong depending on how clogged our ears are with our personal inculturation.  The Apostle Paul penned a verse that, properly translated, gives up hope even if we are off at times:

We are assured and know that [God being a partner in their labor] all things work together and are [fitting into a plan] for good to and for those who love God and are called according to [His] design and purpose. (Romans 8:28 Amplified Bible)

God is our partner, working a plan with unconditional and uncontrolling love as God seeks to work with us in the renewal of all things.  When I was wondering whether I should stay put as a pastor in Illinois, or start a new church in the Kansas City area, or come to Napa, I called a seasoned pastor to get his input.  He said that if I had done all the due diligence work necessary, was doing my best to discern God’s voice, and my intentions were to honor God, I really couldn’t go wrong.  God would work with me in the decision I made.  That brought great comfort.  Still, the process can be laden with real fear and anxiety, as Oord admits:

I sometimes fear what government or religious leaders might do to me and others. I fear I will succumb to unhealthy desires for fame, power, and wealth. I’m afraid my children will make foolish decisions. I fear I’ll die before I grow old, although I fear the aches of growing old too! I’m afraid I’ll make sexual choices that hurt my wife and others. I fear what the earth will be like for me and others because of climate change. I fear violence, war, and torture. I’m afraid I’ll be betrayed or falsely accused. I fear I’ll grow tired of fighting for what’s right. I’m afraid my past choices will hamper future happiness. And more (111).

What might God be calling you to do?  Not as a polite invitation, but because something needs to be done?  Sometimes events that shake us shape the need we are invited to meet.  A lot of people enter the field of psychology because they experienced trauma and want to help others who have had traumatic experiences, too.  Some are struck by a need they cannot ignore, and they act.  Darlene Tremewan noticed 100 years ago that some members of our church needed food and our Food Pantry was born!  Jeni Olsen was wrecked by two teen suicides that happened pretty close to each other, and Teens Connect was born.  My friend saw a need to meet in the slum of Huruma outside Nairobi, Kenya, and Furaha Community Centre went from a back-stoop tutoring program to one of the top schools in the region (thanks significantly to CrossWalk, I might add!).  Some of the most recognizable charities in the world were born similarly – someone saw a need and felt a nudge from God.  Fred Teeters has had a growing concern regarding immigration, and is working to get involved in doing something to help those who are here for asylum awaiting their court date.

These larger, high profile concerns that God needs our help with are inspiring, and yet we need to also recognize the more common experiences that are also critically important, as Oord notes:

I don’t want to imply that only dramatic acts of courage matter. Sometimes the best we can do is far from heroic. In the midst of horrific evils, depression, and pain, the best we can sometimes do is stay alive. Saying, “I’m still here,” may be the most loving action we can take. Taking another step or another breath may be all God asks of us, given our circumstances… Whether acting heroically, simply staying alive, or something in between, God smiles when we affirm our self-worth (114)… Because I believe God does not and cannot control, what I do every moment makes a difference. When I’m confident and accomplishing goals, my life matters in ways that seem important. On days I’m feeling low, depressed, or not confident, my life matters in ways that simply amount to living another moment, taking another breath, moving another inch… And that counts too (116).

When we know we are truly needed to respond to a situation, the human race often responds with great enthusiasm.  World War II caused an entire nation to sacrifice in ways that simply would not have been considered apart from such a need.  When natural disasters strike, people respond to the need with great generosity, as we have witnessed firsthand.  When we really see the need and that we are needed, we tend to move, don’t we?

My friends, the needs abound in the world, and they are not going to go away by themselves or by God waiving a magic wand.  Out of uncontrolling love, God desires to see every evil addressed from the greatest, most obvious examples to the most private, personal sources of pain.  God cannot heal it alone.  God is not passively inviting you to join in on such significant, make-your-life-meaningful work.  God needs you.  And you need the work.  The La-Z-Boy, couch potato life is not living, it’s existing.  It doesn’t deliver for you and it certainly doesn’t serve to make the world a better place.  God needs you and you need the role you play.  Significance and meaning contribute to a flourishing life.

What are you sensing God saying to you?  What is the need?  What is the nudge?

May we share the insight of a spiritual giant from the 16th Century, Teresa of Avila (104):

Christ has no body but yours,

No hands no feet on earth but yours,

Yours are the eyes with which he looks compassion on this world,

Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,

Yours are the hands with which he blesses all the world.

Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,

Yours are the eyes, you are his body.

Questions to Process

1.       How do you feel about the idea that God needs us for love to flourish?

2.       Why do the No God and All God views fail to establish that our lives matter?

3.       Why does the view that says God could control mean God is condescending?

4.       What does the relentless love view say about the afterlife?

5.       How does God work to protect us?

6.       Why does it matter to say our lives — every one of us — matter?

7.       How might God be calling you to cooperate?

God Can't: God Squeezes Good From Bad

Thus far in our series engaging Thomas Oord’s helpful concepts from his book, God Can’t, about the nature of God and how it intersects with the real world we live in, we have learned that God can’t prevent evil singlehandedly (because God is Spirit and not a physical being and God’s love is uncontrolling), that God feels our pain (and we can feel God feeling our pain with us), and that God works to heal everything as much as possible (given physical limitations and varying levels of cooperation with the breadth of creation).  We focus now on another question that many faithful people struggle with when they face really challenging situations: how do we make sense of the awful things that sometimes happen to human beings – is God behind them in any way for some grand purpose?

In the Spring of 2001 I rolled by brand new little red sportscar heading down into Pope Valley beyond Angwin.  The car was totaled, and I walked away with a bunch of staples in my head after my scalp got ripped open from dragging on the pavement after my sunroof blew out.  I was a bit out of it for a few days afterward.  I led a service later in the week on Maundy Thursday, where I shared the experience with the crowd.  One well-meaning person came up to me at the close of the service and said, “God must have really been trying to tell you something to go so far to get your attention!”  I felt so comforted by her kind empathetic words.  It reminded me of the words of Jesus, “Greater love has no man than this, than to cause his friends great harm in order to make a point.”  Good luck finding that verse in the Bible!

I would not be surprised if you have received similar feedback from well-meaning friends and not-so-well-meaning enemies alike.  Or perhaps you’ve made a similar statement to someone when it hit the fan for them.  Or maybe you’ve asked yourself that question after going through something awful.  Perhaps you really wanted good feedback and posed the question to Facebook?  We lose a job.  We get in a wreck. We get a bad medical diagnosis.  We lose our investment due to a crooked investor.  We lose a loved one.  We have a string of bad luck.  We get rejected by a loved one.  Earthquakes, tsunamis, wild fires, hurricanes, tornados ravage the earth, wiping out peoples lives.  Diseases like HIV/AIDS devastate and threaten some parts of the population more than others.  Could God be pulling some strings to make these things happen to communicate with us?

Oord recalls the work of Joni Eareckson Tada, who experienced a tragic diving accident that left her paralyzed from the neck down.  Her story is well known in the Evangelical world, where she has become a popular author, speaker, and artist.  Her theological construct explains her accident as God’s will for some greater purpose.  She further came to believe that God was punishing her for her sin with lifelong paralysis that then led to her extraordinary life of ministry.  She was 17 years old when the accident occurred.  She was pretty sure she would have become involved in even more sinful behavior in her college years, and thus this cleansing (of sorts) prevented her from damaging herself and others further.  She refers to a couple of verse to make her case:

And give thanks for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. – Ephesians 5:20 (NLT)

“My child, don’t make light of the Lord’s discipline,
and don’t give up when he corrects you.
For the Lord disciplines those he loves,
and he punishes each one he accepts as his child.” – Hebrews 12:5b-6 (NLT)

It appears from these two texts that we are to be thankful for even the horrific things that happen to us and humanity in general (since it must surely be God’s will), and that we should interpret the hard things as loving punishment from our Heavenly Father.  In an earlier chapter, Oord noted that God’s love has to be at least as good as human love, that there has to be some level of congruency between the two.  It does not make sense for a young woman to be thankful for being sold into prostitution by her extremely impoverished parents who need the money to put food on the table.  It does not make sense to thank God for widespread starvation, for terrible natural and man-made events that take scores of human life.  Oord offers a nuanced understanding of the meaning we can get behind:

“If God doesn’t want, cause, or allow evil, we are not obligated to thank God for it. Evil is not part of a divine conspiracy. Making sense of gratitude requires that we believe God cannot prevent evil singlehandedly… Victims needn’t say, ‘thank you, God,’ because evil occurred. It wasn’t God’s will. But they can believe God works in every situation, trying to squeeze good from the bad God didn’t want in the first place. They say, “In spite of pain and tragedy, I’m grateful for the good that is in my life, good that has God as its source” (Oord, God Can’t, 81-82). 

As for the idea of “punishing discipline as truly loving”, I mean, come on.  Will that logic hold up in our court of law?  Why would we imagine it would hold up in God’s court?  Oord:

“Good discipline does not mistreat, abuse, or humiliate. Helpful discipline uses nonviolent measures. Healthy discipline of children involves teaching them the negative consequences that come from unhealthy behavior. Good disciplinarians warn of the harm that comes from wrongdoing… If the discipline mentioned in Hebrews is like instruction from a fitness trainer, life coach, or tutor, we understand discipline as positive. Positive discipline isn’t imposed. It’s non-coercive instruction, correction, or training… A loving God disciplines us in non-coercive ways for our good. God’s discipline isn’t punitive; it’s instructive and encouraging. Good discipline promotes well-being by training us in ways that help us live well” (85-86).

Recall that the Bible is not one book but rather a collection of 66 books with a variety of authors from a wide range of life experiences, education levels, living in different times and cultural contexts, writing in multiple genres.  There is not one theology expressed in the pages of the Bible, but several, with differing views on the character and nature of God.  While the general theme of God’s love, grace, and faithfulness is very evident, the particulars of how that plays out are considered differently depending who you are reading. 

One story that seems to validate Joni’s claim is that of Joseph in the book of Genesis.  His father, Jacob, made it clear to his ten brothers by his actions that Joseph was the favorite.  Joseph likely flaunted it a bit which didn’t help.  After awhile, the brothers had had enough.  They sold him into Egypt’s slave trade, thinking they’d never see him again.  Good riddance.  Joseph went through some incredible trials while a slave.  He was falsely accused of attempted rape, which landed him in prison.  He put his leadership skills to use while there, and was gracious to some fellow prisoners he hoped would return the favor on their release.  But it took forever and a day until it panned out.  Eventually, Joseph won the trust of Pharaoh who gave him nearly unlimited power and authority to rule with his wisdom, which ended up saving Egypt and much of the world from global famine.  His brothers caravanned to Egypt to buy food, and ended up coming face to face with their brother, who they did not recognize.  Joseph eventually revealed his identity to them and said, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Gen 50:20).

When we read Joseph’s statement, it is easy to agree with him, isn’t it?  And it seems as if Joseph was convinced this whole thing was God’s plan: brothers selling their sibling, false imprisonment, all for future good.  What do you think?

Thomas Oord offers insight here:

“A better translation of this passage overcomes this misunderstanding. That translation supports the view that Joseph’s brothers wanted him to suffer. But it does not imply his suffering was God’s will. This translation says God uses evil to bring about good.

‘You wanted to harm me, but God used it for good,’ Joseph said to his brothers.

God took what God didn’t want and squeezed good from it. God brought good from bad, positive from negative, health from hate. God redeemed” (79).

What a very different rendering of the passage!  This, of course, jibes with Oord’s construct of God’s uncontrolling love.  Oord continues with alternative thoughts on how to get our head around the terrible things we sometimes experience in life:

“I believe God uses suffering to mature us. And God responds to evil by helping us and others in positive ways. But I don’t think God causes or allows suffering and evil for this purpose. After all, evil doesn’t always produce a mature character. Pain and suffering sometimes bring positive results, but sometimes they don’t. Adversity may lead to maturity, but not always. Enduring and persisting can but don’t necessarily form resiliency.

“This is a better way to think about God and evil. It stands between, on the one hand, believing God is either uninvolved or doesn’t exist and, on the other hand, believing God causes or permits horrors with some purpose in mind.  This better way rejects Joni’s view that God punishes. It opposes her view that God allows what He hates or hurts those He loves. It denies that God designs evil with some goal in mind.

“This better way accounts for the good that sometimes comes after evil by saying God works with creation to wring right from wrong. God does not singly decide whether to protect us from pain and destruction. Instead, there are natural negative consequences to sin, evil, and some accidental events” (91-93).

As I think about all of the things Oord is encouraging us to consider, I remember my car wreck.  I never thought that God caused it – I knew it was my oversteering to avoid a deer that led to the accident.  Therefore, I never entertained the idea that God was trying to tell me something by totaling my car.  However, I do recall laying on the side of the road while an off duty EMT put pressure on my wound while we awaited the arrival of an ambulance.  I remember not having any fear of death whatsoever through the entire experience.  Most clearly, I remember coming to grips with how close a call the wreck was, how much worse it could have been, and it gave me pause.  Laying there, I was reassessing my life priorities.  I made the wreck a meaningful experience in the process. 

Instead of wondering what the meaning of your particular crisis might be, as if it were divinely appointed, how about a better question: how are you going to make your pain a meaningful part of your life?  Richard Rohr, in his book, Everything Belongs, encourages us to allow all the parts of our lives – especially those painful parts we usually avoid or reject, and allow them to speak to us, to help us grow.  All the parts of our personal stories are, after all, part of our story.  All provide fodder for growth and understanding, even integration, which serves to free us to be grateful – not for the trauma, but for the growth we have experienced in our meaning-making process.

How are you going to cooperate with God to squeeze good from your bad experiences?  How are you going to cooperate with God so that you might grow and create meaningfulness from your painful past?

Questions to Process…

1. When has suffering produced mature character in your life or others? When has it not? 

2. What’s the problem with saying “everything happens for a reason?” 

3. Why might some think discipline should be abusive? 

4. Why should we say an uncontrolling God does not punish? 

5. Why does it matter to think there are natural negative consequences to sin and evil rather than seeing negative consequences as God-caused or allowed?

6. Why do some people think natural disasters, accidents, or illnesses are God’s punishment?  

7. Why is it important to be thankful not because of evil but in spite of it? 

Hidden Interstices

Rev. Doug Avilesbernal, Executive Minister of The Evergreen Association of which CrossWalk is a part, shares about the counter cultural and counter intuitive Way of Jesus that chooses to love enemies as the way to transform a world of adversaries into one that is more oriented toward peace. Note: on the front end of the talk, Doug gives a description of who The Evergreen Association is and how it operates differently than most similar organizations.

God Can't: God Works to Heal

The two big ideas Oord has offered so far in his book, God Can’t, are first, that God can’t prevent evil singlehandedly (God doesn’t have hands since God is Spirit, and God’s love is uncontrolling), and second, God feels our pain (and the more ways we open ourselves up to the Presence of God, the more likely we are to experience God’s empathy and compassion).  Now, on to the third big idea from Oord: God works to heal. “God responds to evil by working to make things better. The healing God pursues for us can be emotional, physical, relational, or spiritual. Restoration takes many forms” (Oord, God Can’t, 57).

 There are a number of stories that share accounts of God healing through Jesus.  This one seems particularly relevant as we wonder about God’s work in the area of healing:

      14 When they returned to the other disciples, they saw a large crowd surrounding them, and some teachers of religious law were arguing with them. 15 When the crowd saw Jesus, they were overwhelmed with awe, and they ran to greet him.

     16 “What is all this arguing about?” Jesus asked.

     17 One of the men in the crowd spoke up and said, “Teacher, I brought my son so you could heal him. He is possessed by an evil spirit that won’t let him talk. 18 And whenever this spirit seizes him, it throws him violently to the ground. Then he foams at the mouth and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid (weak). So I asked your disciples to cast out the evil spirit, but they couldn’t do it.”

     19 Jesus said to them (the disciples), “You faithless people! How long must I be with you? How long must I put up with you? Bring the boy to me.”

     20 So they brought the boy. But when the evil spirit saw Jesus, it threw the child into a violent convulsion, and he fell to the ground, writhing and foaming at the mouth.

     21 “How long has this been happening?” Jesus asked the boy’s father.

He replied, “Since he was a little boy. 22 The spirit often throws him into the fire or into water, trying to kill him. Have mercy on us and help us, if you can.”

     23 “What do you mean, ‘If I can’?” Jesus asked. “Anything is possible if a person believes.”

     24 The father instantly cried out, “I do believe, but help me overcome my unbelief!”

     25 When Jesus saw that the crowd of onlookers was growing, he rebuked the evil (unclean) spirit. “Listen, you spirit that makes this boy unable to hear and speak,” he said. “I command you to come out of this child and never enter him again!”

     26 Then the spirit screamed and threw the boy into another violent convulsion and left him. The boy appeared to be dead. A murmur ran through the crowd as people said, “He’s dead.” 27 But Jesus took him by the hand and helped him to his feet, and he stood up.

     28 Afterward, when Jesus was alone in the house with his disciples, they asked him, “Why couldn’t we cast out that evil spirit?”

     29 Jesus replied, “This kind can be cast out only by [fasting and] prayer.” – Mark 9:14-29 NLT

 Matthew remembered Jesus’ concluding comments to the disciples a little differently, saying,

 “You don’t have enough faith,” Jesus told them. “I tell you the truth, if you had faith even as small as a mustard seed, you could say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it would move. Nothing would be impossible.” – Matthew 17:20-21 NLT

 Have you ever prayed for something as hard as you possibly could, with as much faith as you could, maybe even trying to cut a deal with God to secure the outcome you wanted?  Have you ever had that prayer answered with a “no” that you didn’t get the role in the musical or play you wanted, you didn’t get the position on the team you wanted, you didn’t get the grade you wanted, or accepted into the college you wanted?  Or perhaps the “no” meant the relationship you were praying for was not going to recover to health and it was over.  Or maybe it meant that you didn’t get the job you wanted, or the promotion, or the offer you put on the house.  Or it meant that you didn’t get the results on your medical tests you wanted, and it means a really challenging future for you.  Or it meant that someone you dearly loved did not heal from their disease or injury, and they died.  Have you ever had this happen to you?  I sure have.

 Because I grew up in the church, I was very familiar with the story of Jesus healing the kid plagued by some condition that caused convulsions and grand mal seizures, which they attributed to demon possession (what else could they possibly imagine as the cause?).  The disciples tried to handle it but were failing.  Jesus rebuked them, calling them faithless, then went on to tell the father that anything is possible for those who believe.  Jesus then healed the kid.  The take home lesson many people walk away with?  If you don’t get your prayer answered, it’s because you don’t have enough faith, or you didn’t pray or fast (enough).  Some add to the equation unconfessed sins that are prohibiting God from healing: since you failed to tithe, or stop smoking or drinking or swearing or stealing or masturbating or lusting or dishonoring your parents or keeping the Sabbath holy or (fill in the blank), God is not going to heal your loved one from their disease, because God is that petty and God’s love and care are, therefore, conditional.  Have you ever heard this line of thinking in some fashion?  Have you ever struggled with this issue of God’s apparent healing of some and not others?  I sure have.

 In response, Oord offers Four Steps to Understanding God’s Healing Work.  First, Oord notes that God is always present to all creation and always loves to the utmost. God is omnipresent and omniloving.  He offers a great slap-in-the-face, wake up statement for those of us who are looking around, waiting for God to do something: “God never intervenes, because God is always already present!... The God who always loves is already working to heal. We don’t need to cajole, plead, or beg. No need to grovel or crawl on all fours, cowering in hopes that God will relent and come to the rescue. God doesn’t enter a situation from the outside as if previously away on other business… God is always at work everywhere healing to the utmost possible, given the circumstances” (63).  Perhaps instead of wondering if God is present, we should learn new ways to recognize the presence and work of God that is always at hand.

The second step to embrace is the idea that God works alongside people and creation.  Oord notes, “To say, ‘God works alongside’ does not mean God only works indirectly. God knows us personally and loves us specifically by working to heal directly… ‘God works alongside’ people and other entities in creation means God is never the only cause in any situation. Other agents and causes — good, bad, or indifferent — also affect what happens. We are relational beings in an interrelated universe, so we’re always affected by others. We live in a social network” (64).

The third step is to recognize that God cannot heal singlehandedly. Oord: “When we understand that God cannot heal singlehandedly, we solve the problem of selective miracles. If God always works to heal but cannot control anyone or anything, it’s not God’s fault when healing does not occur (65)…  Because God can’t heal singlehandedly, lack of cooperation or inopportune conditions in creation thwart God’s restorative work” (66).   Related to the healing passage we started with, Oord offers clarification regarding the “you lack faith” concern: “Believing that God needs creaturely cooperation or the proper conditions does not mean everyone ill, abused, depressed, suffering, sick, or dying does not have cooperative faith (67). When we or other creatures cooperate or when the conditions are suitable, God heals. Thanks be to God! When creatures fail to cooperate or the conditions are not suitable, God’s efforts are frustrated. Blame creation!... Prayer alters circumstances in our bodies and world. It presents new opportunities for God to heal.  Prayer opens up new possibilities for God’s love to make an actual difference (68). ‘Instead of believing God is uninvolved, perhaps we should believe God is always guiding but never dominating, always influencing but not manipulating’” (72).

The fourth and final step Oord offers is to trust that God’s uncontrolling love extends beyond death.  He notes, “We continue living beyond the grave because God’s loving presence empowers continuing experience after our bodies die. There is a future life free from our current bodies and physical conditions that resist God’s work. Our dream of existing without bodily pain, abuse from others, trauma, and other evils can one day become a reality” (69)!  This is one of the gifts of the witness of Jesus’ resurrection – the unlikely Messiah who was defeated by the Jewish leaders and the Roman Empire ended up being victor over death itself, and therefore took the championship!  We are so accustomed to the idea of life after death that the entrance of such an idea for common people is lost on us.

So, what do we do, then, with unanswered prayers and people left unhealed?  It depends.  If I ravaged my body with alcohol abuse and ruined my liver, or chowed down an extra crispy bucket of KFC every day for 40 years and clogged my arteries, I can’t get too mad at anybody but myself for my failing health.  In that case I have thwarted God’s efforts to heal me.  Praying for global peace seems like a worthy cause (it is), yet peace is unlikely if the people involved are more interested in defending their territory to the death than extending life through mediation.  We can have confidence that Jesus was known to be a healer, and that there are examples today where people experience healing.  What is not known are the list of variables that factor into the equation.  With this rubric, however, we can stop blaming God for not doing anything, because God is doing much more than we likely realize.  How many people have had their lives extended because of medical breakthroughs from brilliant minds trying to understand how to be more helpful?  Many breakthroughs require incredibly powerful paradigms to be shattered.  Herculean effort in some cases.  Don’t you think the Spirit of God might be involved in that kind of work?  As for the passage we started with, how about we allow the writers (and Jesus) to speak from a First Century vantage point?  Maybe the dynamic changed when Jesus got involved because he was the rock star and not just one of the groupies.  Let us not forget that the healing didn’t last forever.  Every single person Jesus healed eventually died.

Sometimes the healing prayers we lift up are related to our physical life.  To get really practical on the physical dynamics of healing, I need to be aware of how I am cooperating with the healing nature of God in my body?  I am asking God to do all the work while I continue bad habits that thwart God’s healing work?

Sometimes the healing prayers we lift up are related to our emotional life.  How are we cooperating with God on that front?  Are we choosing to be aware of what is happening inside, or are we hoping that ignoring our inner turmoil might somehow help?  Are we seeking any help with this from professionals equipped to help us and God heal emotional pain?

Sometimes the healing prayers we lift up are related to our relational life.  Casual, acquaintance-level relationships require little or not work to maintain because they are often confined to a very limited part of our lives (work, the gym, school, etc.).  The relationships that mean the most, however, take work to deepen and grow.  That’s because they do not allow for hiding our crap.  We can get away with a lot in other relationships because they are sort of like Facebook friends who only see what we want them to see.  In our more critical relationships, we are seen and we see – the veneer is off.  Lynne and I are empty-nesters, except for summers when at least one of our kids will be home.  We are more in love with each other than ever.  But we dis not get here simply because the kids went to college.  We have worked through a lot of stuff together, and have had to own a lot of our own crap on our side of the street.  It is hard work.  But this is our most important relationship with another human being.  We have at times not cooperated with the healing work of God and have paid the price with times we did not feel very connected, or anger was swept under the rug, or frustration swallowed.  Those were and are difficult times. When we have chosen to be humble with ourselves, each other, and God, however, we have experienced God’s Spirit softening us, opening us up, loving us into deeper love with each other.

Sometimes the healing prayers we lift up are related to our spiritual life.  Do you sometimes feel distant from God, like God is just not around or caring?  If we believe that God is always active and present, loving us and feeling our pain, and works toward our healing, we have to at least look at what we are doing in our lives that might be hindering or encouraging our spiritual relationship.  What are we doing to foster our relationship with God?  If we aren’t really doing anything differently than what has not worked in our past, why would be expect any different result?

Of course, we don’t always get our prayers answered during life on this plane.  I’ve walked with hundreds of people through the grief of losing a loved one.  I have lost people to death that I prayed for desperately.  It is excruciatingly painful.  The hope issued at the resurrection is real.  There is a final healing that I believe really does take place for us which Jesus spoke into.  While there remains a lot of unknown about what exactly that experience is going to be like, we can take from Jesus that it will be fully immersed in the Presence of God, which can only mean the reigning quality in the afterlife is love.  Those whose bodies were ravaged, whose lives were cut short, who experienced horrible trauma yet have now gone forward are, I believe, truly at rest.  Living with that hope gives me great strength.  That hope is very strong in me because I have nurtured my relationship with God and have experienced healing in various forms in this life – why would I be any less confident that more and better await us in the next experience of life beyond this flesh?

How is this framework sitting with you?  I am feeling freed.  I am feeling like this makes a lot of sense.  I am feeling more hopeful with this construct than those that may have felt more powerful but really didn’t deliver deep or lasting peace.  I hope you are feeling freed as well.

Questions to think about (Oord, God Can’t, 75)

1.       From your experience, what good arguments do the Deniers of healing make?

2.       What good arguments do the True Believers of healing make?

3.       Why might people feel inclined to add, “If it’s your will,” when praying for healing?

4.       Why might people like or not like the claim God always works alongside creation when healing?

5.       What’s at stake in believing God cannot heal singlehandedly?

6.       Why does it matter to believe God can’t control our cells and other bodily members?

7.       What importance does life after death play to understanding healing?

 Fifteen Myths and Realities of Healing (Oord, God Can’t, 73)

 1.       Myth: God healed long ago but doesn’t any longer.

Reality: God always works to heal; this was true in the past and true in the present.

 2.       Myth: God may not heal until we beg or pray hard enough.

Reality: God works to heal even before we ask.

3.       Myth: To heal, God supernaturally intervenes in our lives.

Reality: God is always already present and doesn’t need to “come into” our lives or circumstances.

 4.       Myth: We should add, “If it’s your will” to prayers asking God to heal.

Reality: It’s always God’s will to heal, so this add-on phrase is unnecessary.

 5.       Myth: Our pain, suffering, and abuse are part of God’s preordained plan.

Reality: God’s plan does not include causing or allowing evil.

 6.       Myth: God only loves sometimes and is only present in some places.

Reality: God always loves everyone and is always present working to heal.

 7.       Myth: God is the only cause of healing.

Reality: Creaturely causes — whether small or large — also play a role in healing.

 8.       Myth: God can heal singlehandedly.

Reality: God cannot heal singlehandedly, because doing so would require God to control creatures or creation. God’s love is inherently uncontrolling.

 9.       Myth: There is natural healing, healing by doctors, and divine healing.

Reality: All healing involves God and creaturely causes.

 10.   Myth: God selects whom to heal and whom will suffer.

Reality: God wants to heal everyone, but creaturely conditions or lack of cooperation frustrate God’s efforts.

 11.   Myth: Those not healed did not have enough faith.

Reality: Those not healed often have plenty of faith, but their bodies or other factors prevent healing.

 12.   Myth: God controls cells, organs, and larger entities in our bodies and the environment.

Reality: God expresses uncontrolling love to all creation, great and small.

 13.   Myth: Our prayers for healing don’t make any difference.

Reality: Our prayers alter the circumstances and may open up possibilities for God’s healing.

 14.   Myth: There is no hope for those whose healing is thwarted by actors, factors, and circumstances.

Reality: There is hope, but some healing must wait until after our bodies die.

 15.   Myth: God only heals in heaven.

Reality: God works to heal in this life. When we, our bodies, or others cooperate, or the conditions are right, we are healed now.

Audio Block

Double-click here to upload or link to a .mp3. Learn more

God Can't: God Feels OUr Pain

Before we jump further into Thomas Oord’s book, God Can’t, let’s review just a bit from last week. The principle he put forth last week was that God can’t prevent evil singlehandedly.  This is in part because God is Spirit – God doesn’t have literal hands to intervene.  In addition to that, we are not created as robots, and God does not temporarily roboticize us – we are truly beings with free will.  This does not mean God is inactive or indifferent, which leads us to the next chapter’s principle.

This week’s thesis: God feels our pain.

Does God empathize with us?  Does God show compassion – to suffer with us?  God’s love is assumed in a lot of churches – what do you think?  Psychologist Carl Rogers defines empathy as entering the “perceptual world of the other and becoming thoroughly at home in it, [which] involves being sensitive, moment by moment, to the changing felt meanings that flow in the other person.”  Compassion means to suffer with someone.  Have you ever pictured God like that?  Why or why not?

As Jesus followers, we look to Jesus for a clue on this.  He was connected to God in a way I don’t think has been replicated before or after.  So much so that others referred to him as the Son of God.  While there is ongoing debate as to what that means exactly, suffice it to say we believe that when we see Jesus walking around, we are seeing the face of God.  Jesus was one who was born into poverty and knew what it was like to live on the bottom rung of the social ladder.  Yet he became the embodiment of love and grace, being empathic with those who struggled, and offering compassionate help where he could.

One of his greatest parables gives us an example of what compassion looks like.  The Good Samaritan had every reason to pass by a beaten up, half-dead Jewish guy on the side of the road heading down to Jericho.  But he didn’t.  He stopped (unlike the lip-service religious folks who reasoned their way out of helping).  The thrust of the story is about generously loving and caring for another – even if that “another” is a loathed enemy.  This brilliant parable was a real stretch for Jewish audience, and continues to be for us as we are given a model for generosity expressed, and also a glimpse of how, when we are beaten down by life, are loved by God.  The good, loving, generous servant in the story chose to enter the beaten man’s pain and suffering and take it on himself.  Empathy led to compassionate service: “An empathetic God not only feels our suffering but also prompts others to love in specific ways.” (Oord, God Can’t, 41)

Oord recommends we consider what he calls the Crimson Rule.  We are familiar with the Golden Rule that calls for people to do unto others as they would want for themselves.  The Crimson Rule invites us to suffer with our neighbor as an act of empathetic compassion.  One the greatest examples from Jesus’ life was his horrific execution:

“In his painful death on a splintered cross, Jesus points to a God who suffers with us. In Jesus, God identifies with those gashed and feeling godforsaken, the homeless and the hurting, the depressed and destroyed. In Jesus’ crucifixion, God shares in the suffering of the world and thereby shows solidarity with victims. Jesus reveals a God who empathizes.” (Oord, God Can’t, 43)

He goes on to note that God, who is the source of such love and empathy, is witnessed by others as being fully capable to be with us, to hear our hearts cry, and will never grow weary or run out of love:

 “God’s heart breaks by what breaks us. But this heartbrokenness does not lead God to despair. The God of perfect empathy never gets depressed to the point of immobility. The God of all consolation never suffers empathy fatigue. God’s sensitivity and emotion never lead to evil, because God’s nature is love…  God responds to all that is negative, frustrating, and painful with resilient hope. Pain, suffering, and agony never alter God’s everlasting love... God feels our pain… and can handle it.” (Oord, God Can’t, 39)

If God truly feels our pain and joins us in it, is this something we can experience?  How can we feel God feeling with us?  Before Oord offers half a dozen tips that might make feeling God feeling with us an experiential reality, he calls to our attention a handful of theological perspectives that may get in our way of such a dynamic.  Some have adopted a God-is-a-Brick-Wall orientation whereby God is around but completely impersonal.  Others have an Eye-in-the-Sky view, which is actually a functional Deism that keeps God in heaven without much involvement on earth.  The CEO-of-the-Universe paradigm has God only caring about the biggest picture possible, without concern for how related large-scale decisions might impact those on the ground.  The opposite of that would be the Micro-Manager view of God that portrays God as one primarily interested in the minutia of our lives.  This can lead into the Clean-Freak view that makes God so holy and pure that God doesn’t want anything to do with our dirty selves.  Finally, Oord noted that some can hold a Mob-Boss view, where it’s really good to be faithful family and friends of God, but woe to you if you are not!  Which views have you held?  How have they helped as well as limited your relationship with God?

God’s loving empathy can be experienced.  There are some time-honored practices and perspectives that seem to foster such experiences, as Oord notes.

·       Ministry of Human Presence: Counselor.  Sometimes it is a professional counselor or pastor whose role it is to listen deeply and reflectively and speak back into your life. I have had paradigms shift radically because I sense a word or phrase from a “pro” that seems to be coming directly from the heart of God.

·       Community of Care: Church at its best.  In this space we come together as people who want to seek and be sensitive to the Spirit’s guidance in our lives.  Odds are better this kind of community will conduit the presence of God than many other types of communities. “We all need community. Unswerving solitude stunts growth; those who persist alone perish alone. We need relational arks that promote health and healing. We need places and people who express God’s empathetic love (Oord, God Can’t, 48).

·       Mindfulness/Meditation/Prayer: “Prayer unmasks our false selves, and we encounter God as we really are. We are people loved by God, in need of transforming grace. We can engage others who face the same internal challenges” (Oord, God Can’t, 49).

·       Experiences in Nature. John Muir in Yosemite: “The place seemed holy, where one might hope to see God.  So after dark, when camp was at rest, I groped my way back to that altar boulder and passed the night on it – above the water, beneath the leaves and stars – everything still more impressive than by day, the falls seem dimly white, singing Nature’s old love song with solemn enthusiasm, while the stars peering through the leaf roof seemed to join in the whit water’s song… Thanks be to God for this immortal gift.” – My First Summer in the Sierra in The Wilderness World of John Muir, Edwin Way Teale, ed. (Mariner Books, 2001 [1911]).  Many people experience the presence of our Ground of Being when in the heart of nature.  This makes sense – why wouldn’t we expect to more likely experience the Creator when we immerse ourselves in creation?

·       Visual Arts, Music, and Movies.  Art in general is one human’s expression of their experience offered to the world.  In my experience, the arts need not to be overtly “Christian” or “religious” to be used of God to communicate empathy and compassion.  Sometimes instrumental music (no lyrics) is able to convey and draw such great emotion that it seems as if the music is itself a form of prayer to God, an act of sighing and groaning that Paul referenced in his letter to the Roman church.

·       Love of a Child.  Jesus gave us the right to think of God as a loving daddy that is engaged with his kids.  Children can serve as meaning-makers for parents.  Understanding God’s love for us both in the inherent love one’s children have for their parents, and the immediate, unconditional love parents often feel for their kids grounds our faith in loving trust.  I would include furry kids as well (as well as other types of pets that show devotion to their owners).  In my experience, dogs seem to love their “people” unconditionally, giving us love as well as providing an object for our affection.  Cats, on the other hand, serve to remind us of our selfish propensities…

Last week, we engaged the idea that there are simply some things God cannot do – driven from internal dynamics (not external).  Now we add to that a character trait of God – that this Higher Power truly feels our pain and joins us in it. 

How does this resonate with you?  What new way of engaging God might you adopt to help you move forward in faith and life?

Questions to Consider

1.       Why do you think some people believe God is unaffected and unemotional?

2.       How have bad views of God led you away from affirming God’s loving empathy?

3.       What’s the problem with saying a loving God who could prevent evil singlehandedly would choose instead to suffer with us?

4.       How does thinking of Jesus’ love help us believe God is loving?

5.       When have you felt God’s love, and what sparked that feeling?

6.       What obstacles hinder us from feeling God’s love?

7.       Which of the six practices mentioned near the chapter’s end do you want or need?

God Can't Singlehandedly Prevent Evil

It’s Just Chocolate Chip Cookies.  My parents are good people who did what they thought best in raising their four children.  We were solidly Middle Class, living in a suburban home in Overland Park, Kansas in the 1970’s.  Our basement floor was covered in carpet samples my dad got super cheap.  The orange shag was my favorite – an allusion to my future love of the San Francisco Giants, perhaps?  We grew up with good boundaries and were taught by example, mostly, what being a good person looked like.  We all turned out to be pretty decent people trying to do some good in the world.  And we all love food.  Especially sweets. Probably because we didn’t get sweets very often in the Overland Park years. 

Usually we got to have ice cream on special occasions like birthdays or if grandpa and grandma were in town and we got some vanilla to make our apple pie a la mode – a double treat.  On July 4th we would make home-made ice cream.  What better way to celebrate our nation’s independence than make the creamy stuff of the gods independent of Zarda’s Dairy.  Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s Day also brought with it some delicious tooth-decaying creations.  Beyond special occasions, we didn’t eat sweets.  My parents didn’t have us eating sweets often for a handful of reasons which included cost, health, tooth decay, weight, and that my mom had a tendency to hide the sweets and forget where she hid them, or eat the sweets before they made it to the table!  We did have a cookie jar which was rarely filled.  When it was, we knew it was essentially off limits.  Mom patrolled the jar and also performed quality control as needed – somebody had to!

I was taught from an early age to respect sweets.  To cherish them. To not over-indulge.  To not take other people’s sweets.  To even share sweets with others.  Good, wholesome Kansas sensibilities, all born out of my parents’ love for their children, wanting them to become healthy, wise, responsible adults.  When we were young, mom was there to determine how many sweets were appropriate.  She put the cookies or pie on our plate, scooped the ice cream, and also took things off if we took too much.  If we got sick on sweets as young kids, she would share the blame since she was right there to do something about it.  Mom could not be everywhere, of course, so there were times when things went awry.  One day not long after Halloween, I was left alone in our basement for a period of time.  Alone with my thoughts, my Halloween candy haul, and my brother’s bag of future dental bills as well. I always knew my brother to be generous, so I knew he wouldn’t mind sharing his candy with me.  Boy, was he generous!  He gave be two pieces of candy for every one of his!  Very Jesus like.  Except that he wasn’t around, which made it a clear case of theft.  I literally got caught holding the bag and had to give him back all the candy that I did not Trick-or-Treat for, plus some sort of punishment that I do not recall.  Had my mom been there, she would have prevented me from stealing in the first place and would have used physical action to wrest the bag from my death grip.  Even more, if she were present and I took candy from my brother’s bag, she would then be an accomplice, and in some way responsible for my brother’s candy deficit.  But she wasn’t there physically, so she wasn’t complicit in any way – this was all on me.  She reportedly loves my brother just as much as me (somehow), and wasn’t there to protect him, either.  He was hemorrhaging calories unawares.

I am now a grown man, and my mother is no longer in close enough proximity to monitor my sugar intake.  She still loves me and is in the Top Five list of people who care about my health the most.  She can only hope that I will remember the good lessons I learned growing up, and that I will grow in wisdom as I reflect on who I am and who I want to be as I face the choices that come my way.  The wisdom she gave resides in me, and she loves to hear from me.  And, I might add, she knows that now and then it is right and good to eat sweets in abundance for the simple pleasure of eating sweets!  Anyone who knows her knows she’s no cookie Nazi…

In his book, God Can’t, Tom Oord makes the case that God can’t prevent evil singlehandedly.  He notes that the word “can’t” is not the same as “won’t”, which assumes that God could if God wanted to thwart evil.  “Won’t” means God would then choose to allow evil to take place that God could keep from happening.  Our small human brains have collectively determined that such behavior makes a person an accomplice on some level to the evil performed.  “Can’t”, however, means that God is not able to prevent evil for some reason.  This is much more than semantics.  This is a very substantive difference he is noting. Oord notes, “Because God’s love self-gives and others-empowers, and because God loves all creatures from the most complex to the least, God cannot control. God loves everyone and everything, so God cannot control anyone or anything. This means a God of uncontrolling love cannot control evildoers to prevent their dastardly deeds” (God Can’t, 24).   “Can’t” means God’s hands are tied in some way. 

One way in which God’s hands are tied is the fact that God doesn’t have hands to tie!  God cannot physically constrain anyone to do anything because God is Spirit, as Jesus himself noted (John 4:24). “A bodiless, universal spirit cannot do what embodied creatures sometimes can. Despite having no body, God is present and active in all situations. Divine power is direct but persuasive, widespread but wooing, causal but uncontrolling. God’s loving activity makes a difference without imposing control or using a divine body” (Oord, God Can’t, 27).  Another reason God cannot prevent evil singlehandedly has to do with God’s character of love.  The constraints on God’s capacity are not external, but internally derived.  Love does note demand its own way (1 Cor. 13:5), as seen in Jesus throughout his ministry – he honored people’s freedom to choose as an act of love.   And another reason God cannot prevent evil singlehandedly is because God created everyone and everything with true freedom in mind: free will for us and a version of it for every aspect of creation.  Like my mom not being in the basement when I was ravaging my brother’s Trick-or-Treat bag, she could not prevent what was happening, and we all became aware (soon enough) that I had the capacity to freely act according to my own sweet-tooth-driven, greedy, self-centered will.

Are we without help in a world where evil seems to run rampant?  Not at all.  God can’t prevent evil singlehandedly, which implies that cooperating with others might make a difference.  Like my mother who did her best to influence me, in effect, to become like her, so God desires that we grow into God’s image – our True Self and greatest potential.  I am sure my mother at times hopes that I remember the good things she taught me.  Paul noted that the law of God is written on all people’s hearts – the goodness of God is part of us whether or not we know it.  And, anytime I want to connect with my mom – for help on something or to simply stay connected, my mom is more than happy to be available.  This is true of God as well.  When we call out to God, I believe God woos us toward love at its depths.  God can’t prevent evil singlehandedly, but that does not mean that God is uncaring or inactive.  Quite the contrary.  God is the very source of love and care, and God’s activity as Spirit can influence us and others greatly if we’ll have it.  Oord puts it beautifully here: “When complex creatures cooperate with God, good things happen. Love flourishes. Peace blossoms. Astonishing miracles can occur. When complex creatures fail to cooperate with God, evil happens. Unnecessary pain and pointless suffering occur.  The demons dance. Because a loving God did not make us and others robots, good and bad are possible” (God Can’t, 28).

What is your relationship with sweets?  How do you determine how many sweets you might enjoy?  You are free to choose, of course, and you are free to steal others’ cookies (although there will be consequences). You can also choose to drill deeper into your being and wonder what is aligned with your True Self as God’s reflected image.  You can go further and ask God to give you insight and strength regarding your cookies.  All of these behaviors apply if you eat too many cookies that you bought or made honorably or even if you steal them – seeking your True Self and God’s Spirit to guide you makes a difference.  And if someone steals your cookies, God is with you to pick up your crumbs, remind you of who you are, helping you become your True Self and giving you strength and direction as Spirit. 

There is great freedom in this way of thinking.  Freedom to stop blaming God for what God can’t do.  Freedom to take responsibility for our actions.  Freedom to understand others’ actions as their own.  Freedom to draw near to God for insight, support, and strength to move forward in our becoming.  The Spirit of God is active and present with us all: “God acts like a loving suitor.  Nothing can stop God from inviting us, moment-by-moment, to a loving relationship. God’s uncontrolling love is uncontrollable! But we can choose not to cooperate. We can fail to say, “Yes!” When we do not respond appropriately, the mutual relationship of love God desired is thwarted. God’s will is not done on earth as it is in heaven. But “Yes!” leads to abundant life” (God Can’t, 33).

The invitation toward love and life is constant.  How are you hearing it?  What does “Yes!” mean to you beyond simple emotional assent? What does “Yes!” look like played out in your life?  What are you going to do with this now?

God Can't: Introduction

Before I talk about some of the areas we will delve into in the God Can’t series based on the book by Thomas Jay Oord of the same name, I need you to do some preparatory work.  I will explain why after you take the following two assessments. *

What are your thoughts about free will? 

Circle your answer for each statement.

Strongly Agree <-> Strongly Disagree

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

1.       My exercise of free will is limited by my upbringing.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

2.       Because of my background influences, I have no real free will.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

3.       I will have free will all of my life.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

4.       I have free will in life, regardless of group expectations or pressures.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

5.       My behaviors are determined by conditioning and life experiences.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

6.       My choices are limited by God’s plan for my life.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

7.       My wealth, class, race, and gender determine my decisions and behavior.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

8.       My choices are constrained by God.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

9.       I am free to make choices in my life regardless of social conditions.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

10.    I have total free will.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

11.    My free will is limited by such social conditions as wealth, career, and class.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

12.    My decisions fit into and thus are limited by a larger plan.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

13.    My present behavior is totally a result of my childhood experiences.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

14.    God’s will determines the choices I make.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

15.    God has my life planned out.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

16.    My behaviors are limited by my background.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

17.    When things are going well for me, I consider it die to a run of good luck.

1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9

What words describe God?

Rate each word using the following valuations:

1: The word does not describe God.

2: The word describes God.

3: The word describes God particularly well.

1.       ___ Absolute

2.       ___ Active

3.       ___ All-wise

4.       ___ Avenging

5.       ___ Blessed

6.       ___ Blunt

7.       ___ Charitable

8.       ___ Comforting

9.       ___ Considerate

10.    ___ Controlling

11.    ___ Creative

12.    ___ Critical

13.    ___ Cruel

14.    ___ Damning

15.    ___ Dangerous

16.    ___ Demanding

17.    ___ Democratic

18.    ___ Distant

19.    ___ Divine

20.    ___ Eternal

21.    ___ Everlasting

22.    ___ Fair

23.    ___ Faithful

24.    ___ False

25.    ___ Fast

26.    ___ Fatherly

27.    ___ Fearful

28.    ___ Feeble

29.    ___ Firm

30.    ___ Forgiving

31.    ___ Formal

32.    ___ Gentle

33.    ___ Glorious

34.    ___ Gracious

35.    ___ Guiding

36.    ___ Hard

37.    ___ Helpful

38.    ___ Holy

39.    ___ Impersonal

40.    ___ Important

41.    ___ Inaccessible

42.    ___ Infinite

43.    ___ Jealous

44.    ___ Just

45.    ___ Kind

46.    ___ Kingly

47.    ___ Lenient

48.    ___ Loving

49.    ___ Majestic

50.    ___ Matchless

51.    ___ Meaningful

52.    ___ Meek

53.    ___ Merciful

54.    ___ Moving

55.    ___ Mythical

56.    ___ Omnipotent

57.    ___ Omnipresent

58.    ___ Omniscient

59.    ___ Patient

60.    ___ Passive

61.    ___ Permissive

62.    ___ Powerful

63.    ___ Protective

64.    ___ Punishing

65.    ___ Real

66.    ___ Redeeming

67.    ___ Restrictive

68.    ___ Righteous

69.    ___ Safe

70.    ___ Severe

71.    ___ Sharp

72.    ___ Slow

73.    ___ Soft

74.    ___ Sovereign

75.    ___ Steadfast

76.    ___ Stern

77.    ___ Still

78.    ___ Strong

79.    ___ Supporting

80.    ___ Timely

81.    ___ Tough

82.    ___ True

83.    ___ Unchanging

84.    ___ Unyielding

85.    ___ Valuable

86.    ___ Vigorous

87.    ___ Weak

88.    ___ Warm

89.    ___ Worthless

90.    ___ Wrathful

91.    ___ Yielding

Reviewing these two assessments – even without knowing quite how to score them – will give you a rough idea where you land on two areas of interest: your take on free will versus determinism and what adjectives you use to describe the nature of God.  Knowing these before we launch into thoughtful consideration of some deep theological weeds is critical if you want to be helped by this series.  If you don’t do this preliminary step, this series over time will be largely forgettable.  I mean that quite literally.  Because until we know what we believe, we really can’t believe otherwise.

From the moment we are born we take in loads of information and organize it into complex construct.  Since we are raised by human beings, we are naturally influenced by them – our eyes are radically shaped by their perspective, and so, therefore, are our constructs.  When we entertain new information that doesn’t fit into our constructs, we first engage it with curiosity.  However, if the new information cannot fit within our existing conceptual framework, we will reject the new information as absurd, and may even forget we ever heard about it.  When we first identify our construct so that we can compare and contrast the new construct with our existing one, we have the opportunity to truly compare them to one another and allow the new construct the capacity to transform or even replace our existing one (especially if that new concept is affirmed by supportive community over time).  Until we know what we believe, it is highly unlikely that we will believe otherwise, even to our detriment.

The new bus terminal in San Francisco provides a good example of this phenomenon in action.  The beautiful, new $2.2 billion terminal that was supposed to be a model for the future for other large cities trying to encourage mass transportation usage opened with great fanfare about a year ago, and then closed six weeks later after a maintenance worker noticed a massive crack running through a girder that was holding up a ceiling/parking garage as well as a deck for buses.  Luckily, the problem was caught before any large structural failure took place.  After expert evaluation, all involved recognized that the problem had to do with what the construction workers (or their supervisors) believed about the welding and cutting holes in steel.  They believed it didn’t make any difference which came first.  It turns out, however, that it made the difference between success and failure.  The information was likely available, and the engineers likely made a notation about how important it was that the welding preceded the hole cutting.  But if you have in your mind that it doesn’t make any difference, will you believe it does?  In this case, nope.  You can read the article here.

Until you are aware of what you believe, you will not likely believe anything else.  There is just not any room for it.

Most of us only acknowledge a problem when we can no longer ignore it.  Our drinking has caused too many problems.  Our anger is destroying relationships.  Or the realization is so profound that we cannot see the world the same again. This was the case for Jesus.  We’re not sure about all that went into the transformation, but his message was profoundly different from that which was being peddled around him.  So different that the system he was challenging killed him.  For a taste of his new ideas, read his famous Sermon on the Mount, where nearly everything he said challenged the status quo.  Jesus was a radical with radically different thoughts about God and life.  So was Paul.  As was the disciple, Peter.  Each of whom had their worlds turned upside down after they saw something they couldn’t unsee.  Unfortunately, it is often only when we are brought to our knees that we are humble enough to finally see, finally listen, finally change. 

Taking the above assessments is a proactive way to get into a mental space where you can think through what you believe so that when you hear something different, you can truly engage it and consider new constructs that will be helpful in your life and faith.  If you don’t bother with such a waste of time and energy, don’t worry: the human experience brings crises in abundance that will strain your construct like a parking deck and bus platform on a transportation hub in San Francisco.  Hopefully you will recognize the crack and fix it before the whole thing collapses…

 *The first test is the Free Will-Determinism Scale (Stroessner & Green, 1990), and the second is Adjective Ratings of God (Gorsuch, 1968).

2019 Ask Anything

The Process Behind the Answers

In the Christian tradition, Jesus is our role model for understanding what it means to live a faithful life that is full of meaning, purpose, fruitfulness, and of course, God.  He was referred to as a Rabbi, and based on his teachings, we can clearly identify that he employed a process espoused by the rabbinical tradition of his day.  In short, this would mean that he placed value in the scripture as a time-tested-and-honored remembrance of how the Jewish people were experiencing God.  The writers were surely humble and prayerful in their recording, and God surely was moving through them in the writing.  The text is about God – God is the story – and therefore it is sacred text.  And yet all of the fingerprints were left on the pages – all of the context was left there for all to see, which is a very good thing.  The ancient rabbis believed there was as much Spirit flowing in the writers of the text as in the readers and interpreters of the text.  God gives the interpreter insight as to understanding the meaning and how to apply the text as we carefully appreciate the original fingerprints/context and our own paradigms that filter everything we see and think about.  The text was not to be worshiped, but rather worked over and worked into our lives.  This is why Jesus felt free to offer new interpretations of scripture and its application – much to the chagrin of the leaders who had been teaching otherwise!  It’s partly why he got killed.

My approach to the Bible is in line with Jesus.  I treat it as incredibly informative and authoritative, but only when understood with context in mind, which sometimes makes an enormous difference.  The rabbis felt free to disagree with each other, to completely ignore passages they couldn’t make out, and to value multiple conclusions and applications regarding specific texts.  When I think about the issues of life and faith, I factor in what the Bible says in context, the character and nature of God (as best as I can), what I am sensing the Spirit saying to me in my context, and what other voices are saying in their context (scholars and colleagues).  Sometimes that leads me to very unorthodox conclusions, which I think is warranted at times, since orthodoxy itself originated hundreds of years after Jesus’ ministry, within a context that surely influenced the outcome (as is the case for every “amendment” to orthodoxy ever since).  My answers, therefore, are not proof-texted, but rather a reflection of what I believe to be responsible Christian praxis – and application of what I sense to be the Way of Jesus.

Ask Anything Answers

1.       Angels appeared in scripture. Do you believe angels intercede in healing or situations to help people?

a.       I believe God is actively engaged in the world toward redemptive ends which include bringing healing in many forms to a wide range of personal, community, and global concerns.  Some people may experience that activity as the presence of an angel(s) for whatever reasons.  Belief in angels or not does not, in my opinion, matter a whole lot because the end is the same: God is active.

2.       Is it the devil/Satan working in people that creates evil deeds, or people who propitiate evil ideas themselves? Some evil deeds are explained by mental illness, but what about people who plan and propitiate evil?

a.       There is no doubt that evil exists in the world.  Those who were living in Jesus’ era had developed a way of explaining evil by personifying it with the Satan figure (whose character and role evolved throughout scripture).  I don’t resonate with such personification, mainly because I believe it severely limits our understanding of the roots of evil and therefore may hinder our ability to address them.  There are lots of reasons people carry out evil in small and large ways.  Selfishness seems to be a common theme, which makes sense because the Spirit of God invites us to always be mindful of others as much as ourselves.

3.       What is the definition of heaven?  If there is no hell but separation from God, what is heaven?

a.       There are a range of images for what heaven may be like.  All metaphors describing what it might be like to be in the full presence of God.  The idea of a literal hell needs to be revisited in light of biblical research chronicling the motivation and development of the concept beginning a few centuries before Jesus was born.

4.       Some people believe in being reunited with loved ones or others from their lifetime in heaven. If that is so, what about those of us who don’t want to be reunited with family or other people who harmed us, such as pedophiles?  Are pedophiles ever forgiven?  Does Matthew 18:6 apply to any harm to children? What assurance do we have of peaceful eternal life without those people?

a.       The Apostle Paul uses a metaphor of a refiner’s fire to describe what happens at the end of our lives which reveals what we’ve made of our lives.  I like it.  There is room for the most broken person who is left with only their soul, yet for those who build their lives with the Spirit’s lead, there is great beauty revealed.  Our “family reunion” views are metaphor depicting a happy, hopeful future, but it remains a metaphor.  For those longing for the reunion, there is good news – it will be better than that.  For those who cannot fathom heaven like that, there is good news – it will be better than that.  In the Christian tradition, we trust the teaching and modeling of Jesus.  We place ourselves and our hope in his care.  What more graceful hope could we possibly have?

5.       How am I to understand other religion’s “God” when our God loves us all. Is their God real?

a.       Every religion is trying to make sense of the world, life, faith, the future, etc.  When we get stuck on the details of the specific doctrines, we see great separation.  When we listen to the mystics from those same traditions, we get unity: God is love, peace, joy, life – we are tapping into the same Ground of Being.  When we worship religion, we’re in trouble.  When we worship what religions are trying to help us seek, we worship the same Greater Other. Aside: When you’re hearing hatred, you are not likely hearing God.

6.       Pastor Pete, you’ve said in a YouTube video that Jesus can be viewed as a demigod, rather than THE GOD incarnate. How is that reconciled with John 1:1? And would you say the same thing about other gods throughout history – that they were “with God in the beginning?”

a.       What I was highlighting was something we very easily overlook as Christians 2,000 years removed from Jesus’ birth.  As Matthew and Luke tell the Jesus story, God in some fashion got Mary pregnant, making it a divine-human baby.  This was welcome news to a non-Jewish audience who were accustomed to such beliefs from their Roman and Greek mythology.  It added to Jesus’ credibility in their eyes.  BUT! The idea of a Jewish-demigod-Messiah was appalling – they would never believe such a thing.  I mentioned it to encourage a bit more roominess in our thinking about the mystery surrounding what was going on in Jesus.  As for John 1:1, scholars understand that the Word refers more to the anointing Spirit rather than Jesus’ physical person.  The Word is that agency of God that comes. Inhabits, and speaks to the world.

7.       Is there any sin that is unforgivable? If so, what are the unforgivable sins? Whose sin was worse, Peter’s denial or Judas’ betrayal?

a.       The Bible speaks of denying the Spirit as an unforgivable sin.  I think forgiveness is a bigger deal for us than God.  We can’t really “own” forgiveness until we are on the other side of sin where we recognize what we’ve been up to and seek to turn it around (the meaning of repent). It’s not that God is unwilling to forgive – it’s that we are still messing things up willfully and therefore unable to see what we’re doing and be open to reconciliation.  In that sense, God’s hands are tied – God is waiting with grace once we come to our senses.  Hard to know which sin was worse – both suck.  Both are reminders of what well-meaning, Jesus-loving people are capable of.

8.       Why does the Church focus so much on original sin from Genesis?

a.       Because Paul created the idea to provide a biblical/theological rational for Gentile inclusion.  Original Sin is a Christian concept, not Jewish.  We shouldn’t be focusing so much on it, frankly – it was derived for a purpose that we have coopted for our own theology.  I think Paul is rolling in his grave about this.

9.       Why did Jesus have to die on the cross? What if he didn’t?

a.       The classic answer rooted in orthodoxy is that he had to die so that a final sacrifice could be made on our behalf – he became the substitutionary atonement that satisfied God’s need for justice to keep heaven holy, pure, sin-free, etc.  This idea did not come readily to the disciples.  It took years for them to figure out what to do with Jesus’ crucifixion.  Substitutionary atone and paying the ransom was the answer that made sense to them.  However, the Bible is ultra clear that God in no way shape or form desired or ever dictated human sacrifice to be made to atone for sin.  Soooooooo, that makes the idea of Jesus’ death-as-God’s-means-of-atonement troubling, at best. Jesus’ whole life and teaching was about the grace of God in its beautiful depths.  If he would have died at a very old age after a long life of ministry, and then appeared in resurrected form to his disciples, my guess is that we would be talking about the beauty and depth of God’s grace just like we are now, but without the need for substitutionary atonement.  Shocker: God was gracious and forgiving before the cross.  The cross became a new symbol for grace – but it did not change God’s level of graciousness. 

10.    What’s CrossWalk’s position on divorce?

a.       Divorce is an extremely excruciating experience that nobody signs up for on their wedding day.  It signals the brokenness of covenant, trust, shared dreams, and much more – which is why God hates it.  We should be compassionate with those who are involved in divorce at all levels instead of legalistic.  People need love here, not a spanking.

11.    Does God laugh?

a.       Of course!  What other explanation could there be for thunder?

12.    What is the good history of the Baptist Church?

a.       We started out as people who read their bibles freely and interpreted it as they saw fit, which led them to believer’s baptism.  Baptists have also at times been instrumental in the work toward freedom from slavery and for civil rights.  Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Baptist preacher.  Recently, however, as conservative dogmatism has increased, Baptists are more associated with being judgmental jerks that only care about abortion and gay marriage, and who is going to hell.

13.    What is the point of life given its brevity, followed by a never-ending eternity?

a.       The point of life is to experience the gift of life to its fullest potential with the hope that when this life gives out (we die), we will return to the very source of life (God).  The Good News is that no matter what cards we are dealt, God is with us, loving and leading us toward that greatest experience of life that ultimately has absolutely nothing to do with how much money we make or how we look or how much we weigh or how many Facebook friends we have or…  In the Christian tradition, we believe that way of life was modeled by Jesus, who was all about stretching, kneeling, gracing, incarnating, connecting with God, choosing God over self, all for the purpose of new life, restoration, resurrection here and now for everybody, always.  Pretty compelling.

14.    What are your views on the death penalty?

a.       I think it’s a bad idea for a number of reasons.  First and foremost, dehumanizing one person allows us to dehumanize many, many more, which is an afront to the core idea that we are all created in the image of God.  Second, there is no evidence that the death penalty reduces violent crime.  Third, there have been cases when the wrong person was put to death. Fourth, it is an unbelievable waste of money.  Nobody sentenced to death in our country dies next week – maybe next decade after appeal after appeal is attempted.  Life in prison without parole is a much more fitting sentence that saves a lot of money.

15.    How does this church guard against “giving/serving burnout”?

a.       Some ministries are more prone to this than others.  Children’s ministry, in particular, is very prone to burnout.  So, we try to limit how often our volunteers and staff serve, and try to keep tabs on their health.  We also try hard not to impose guilt or shame on anybody who needs to step away. As a pastor in a field where burnout is really high, I try to build balance into my life with regular days off and vacation.  If I am modeling balance, there is a better chance we will not overly celebrate workaholism in the church.  There are no bonus points for ruining our lives and families in the name of the Lord…

16.    What’s the best approach to reading the Bible?

a.       Slowly, thoughtfully, and methodically.  There is value in reading the whole thing so that you have a clue what’s in there.  But, in case you haven’t noticed, it’s a pretty big book – a collection of 66 books.  I would start with one of the Gospels and simply read it through slowly – stopping often to reflect on what is being said.  Journal about it.  Getting a good commentary can be very helpful in uncovering the context and nuances that would otherwise be missed.  I think The New Interpreters One Volume Bible Commentary and the Harper Collins Commentary are great additions to anyone’s library.  Making Sense of the Bible by Adam Hamilton is a book we sell here – it’s a very good guide.  Pete Enns also has a book on the Bible that we will sell in 2020 when the paperback comes out.  Read it as if you are reading someone else’s mail.

17.    What role does the Eucharist play here at CrossWalk?

a.       An infrequent one, unfortunately…  If you are coming from a Catholic or Episcopal background, the infrequency of communion may be startling.  I’d like to change that, but need some help to make that happen.  The Baptist tradition generally offers communion once a month.  The reason for the difference has much to do with where emphasis is placed on worship elements.  In the aforementioned traditions, communion is really central, where in most Protestant traditions, the teaching of the Bible is most central.  If you love communion, let me know so I can recruit you to a team to make it happen!

18.    How can CrossWalk embrace mysticism and the Divine Feminine?

a.       We’re certainly open to it and working on it.  The upcoming class on meditation will certainly help.  I’m a mystic myself, and love Richard Rohr – so there is plenty of motivation coming from my office. 

19.    Best way to deal with difficult people?

a.       Really good boundaries and a lot of prayer.  Get the book, Boundaries, by Townsend and Cloud.

20.    What’s a good ten minutes to start my day?

a.       I think it is very wise to incorporate into the beginning of the day solitude/silence/stillness, sacred input (devotional, scripture, listening to spiritual’ish music), reflection, and resolve to be your healthiest self.  This centers us, grounds us in God, and reminds us of who we are capable of becoming.