The Refreshingly Complex Bible: A slightly provocative look at scripture as it really is

One of the more confusing things for people who actually attempt to read the Bible is its apparent round-about-ness. Many people read the Bible with the assumption that it was written to give answers for their life. After all, didn’t the youth pastor say that it was (B)asic (I)nstructions (B)efore (L)eaving (E)arth? Doesn’t that mean that it is supposed to answer all of my questions about morality as well as cover the other important stuff: the problem of pain and suffering, dating and courtship techniques, how to handle my shrinking 401k, scientific basics about the origins of the world, how to get to heaven, and which toothpaste to buy.

The challenge for the poor soul who happens to be crazy enough to try to open the book without a pastor-expert’s help is to navigate through the vast number of confusing or disturbing passages in the Bible. Even a quick glance at the scriptures will allow you to encounter righteous polygamists, the genocide of entire nations, the proscribed killing of thousands upon thousands of animals in order to please God, odd ways to tell if you have a skin disease, methods to determine if an animal is suitable for eating or not, etc., etc. All of this in order to get to a real gem like, “Love your neighbor.”

Within many Christian settings people put their head in the sand about the complex nature of the Bible. They either treat the Bible as though it is a simple book with lists of timeless moral truths (causing me to ask, “have you read the book?”) or a magic book that you can skip around in to find the words you need for today. - Sort of like shaking a Magic Eight Ball, reading the Horoscope, or using an Ouija Board to get your personalized daily oracle. - Sometimes you need an encouraging word, sometimes it’s a tough word of discipline, or sometimes it’s an insight into what you should do about your rebellious kid. But whatever you need, just shake it up like the Magic Eight Ball and see what it says. (Or better yet, just grab Purpose Driven Life off the shelf next to the Bible – someone else already did the hard work, why bother?)

Still others treat the Bible as though it is a doctrinal word puzzle. – “I know what it ought to say, so now I just need to find some phrases that seem to indicate support for my predetermined conclusions.” Using the Bible this way could mean clipping a phrase from anywhere, even if the context means that the passage is saying the exact opposite of what I want the words to say. But it is ok as long as it appears to make the correct doctrinal statement, right? (Why let a little context get in the way of doctrine?)

As much as it may sound like I’m making light of the approaches to scripture above, I have to admit I have spent time in my life using the Bible in each of those ways. It just became difficult to go on doing so while trying to be intellectually honest. Do you know what I mean?

Here is what I have discovered: Although many don’t talk about it, the Bible is a major stumbling block for many Christians… and, perhaps, for good reason. It’s a lot more complicated than well-meaning pastors and evangelists want to admit. What do we do with this book that is filled with crazy unsanitized stories that would certainly give it an NC-17 rating if it were ever to me made into a movie? Many Christians, truth be told, are either afraid or ashamed of the book (or both).

I find it interesting to listen to pastors preach from stories in the Bible that are horrific by any standard of measurement. Say, for example, Jael pounding a tent stake through Sisera’s head (Judges 4:1-24). What I find amazing is how pastors manage to completely ignore the dreadful horror of the story by “spiritualizing” its meaning. Apparently, like the Gnostics of the second century, these pastors have special insight into the true meaning of these stories (which is nowhere found in the Bible itself). Where do they get this special meaning? I’d like to know, and so would many others who go home and try to read the bible on their own without such “spiritualization” being imposed on the text.

Much of the difficulty of the Bible comes from how a person thinks about the Bible, the person’s expectations. I suggest that the problem comes from the assumptions people bring to their reading of the Bible. “This book was written to / for me,” or “this book is meant to explain the way to heaven” become the lenses through which people approach the text (to name a couple common examples). These lenses end up controlling expectations and sheltering people from what they could experience while reading the Bible.

Many Christians are so zealous to protect the Bible’s uniqueness amongst religious texts claiming “truth” that they don’t listen to what the book says about itself. It often seems that people claim expectations for the text of scripture that it never claims for itself. Sometimes people are so eager to make the Bible appear “relevant” for our world today that they pretend like it is a book of analogies, metaphors and fables with pithy little morals at the end of each story. What I find equally amazing is when I discover a group that talks a big game about the Bible’s authority, relevance and precision, but if you look closely, they only read and teach from about one fifth of its contents because so much of it doesn’t fit into their program or agenda so well. It seems like a lot of the rhetoric around the Bible springs from insecurity. - Maybe if we yell louder about the Bible’s inerrancy or its relevance to our world nobody will notice the embarrassing stuff we don’t talk about.

Is it because we are afraid of complexity that we are tempted to make the Bible into something it clearly is not?

What if we could read the book as it actually is? – No manipulating it, no sugarcoating it, no spiritualizing it. What if we could allow ourselves to be horrified by the violence that occurs throughout the Old Testament, bewildered by stories that seem incredibly odd, and intrigued by cultural practices that came and went in the history of the people of God? What if we were able to see that humanity (over the millennia) has morally developed (albeit slowly and incompletely – perhaps with guiding hand of the Spirit) so that most of humanity doesn’t need to be told not to have sex with an animal or with one’s mother. And is it ok to recognize that most humans don’t need to be told not to offer their children to be burned alive to appease an angry, superstitious deity. How would it change our reading if we could recognize that while God (in identity and character) is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, humanity isn’t? Isn’t it just plain honest (based on reading scripture) to say that God doesn’t necessarily relate to humanity in the exact same way yesterday, today and tomorrow?

Underlying my questions above is the idea that perhaps we could read the Bible without it being all about ourselves. Maybe the form of the Bible is in part purposeful – in order to devastate our self-centered impulses. I have read the Bible through multiple times now and I haven’t found my name and my exact circumstances in there anywhere. This is beginning to convince me that perhaps the Bible isn’t all about me. That means that it probably doesn’t directly answer the questions that are burning on my mind right now like, “should I pick up a second job in order to make it through this economic downturn?” If I go to the Bible with that sort of question, I am either going to manipulate the text and treat it like a Magic Eight Ball or find myself disappointed by its lack of insight into my particular circumstances.

So, if the purpose of the Bible isn’t to give me answers for my problems today, what is it? A number of Biblical scholars (who believe in the unique authority of scripture) suggest that the primary purpose of the Bible in the form that it is in is to tell a story. The story, as it stumbles along over the course of several thousand years, enlightens the reader about God’s intentions for His creation project and humanity’s devastating diversion from those intentions. The story includes God’s means of redeeming, reconciling and restoring His shattered creation project, and the hope for where this whole story of planet earth (along with the rest of the cosmos) will end up. But the Bible tells the story in a unique, complex, and roundabout way. It combines fascinating and sometimes obscure cultural details and all sorts of bits and pieces that I never asked about in its telling of the grand story. It intertwines stories of dark and evil characters with those of fragile but good characters. It includes wisdom collections (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes), songs (Psalms), poetry (John 1), vivid apocalyptic imagery (Revelation), fierce criticism of God (Book of Job), and angry journal entries asking God to do horrible things to the writer’s enemies (Psalm 137).

For many readers the story appears to become much more understandable or relatable when it finally gets to Jesus and the rest of the New Testament (and thus the temptation to ignore the Old Testament). But all of the New Testament is just as wrapped up in historical, cultural, and literary clothes as the Old Testament is (examples of this fill every page of the New Testament). And, to make matters more complicated, Jesus and the New Testament are completely incomprehensible without the rest of the story before it. After all, Jesus is the climax of that story.

One of the early heresies that a few people in the church tried on in the 2nd century A.D. was this idea of trying to strip the Jewishness of the New Testament away. These peoples’ ideas were promptly (and rightly) tossed out by discerning individuals who saw that Jesus’ entire identity and meaning (and the rise of the church) is found in the midst of the story of Israel as told through the pages of Old Testament. Jesus’ teaching, life, death and resurrection all come as part of the story. Outside of the story they fall flat; they make no sense. After all, the authors of the New Testament and the early church considered the Old Testament to be their scriptures. To truly understand the meaning of Jesus and the story of the New Testament church we must seek to read the whole story and understand it in its historical, cultural, literary clothes.

So much of the Bible appears to be information that is not relevant to the immediate details of my life… and it isn’t. I suppose the whole story could have been summarized in a much more concise manner, but it wasn’t. This is where I take issue with well-meaning pastors who try to strip the Bible down to a set of cold naked propositions. If God had wanted to drop a simple and precise book from Heaven about universal human ethics, the way to get to Heaven, the purpose of life, the problem of evil, and how to find the right spouse, He could have done it in a lot simpler and more concise manner than with the book He chose to use. (Which, by the way, did not drop from Heaven). He apparently didn’t want to.

The book we have is providentially the way it is. I, for one, am proud of it. I find it authentic in its complex and often messy portrayal of humanity and God’s relationship with humanity. I find that in diligently reading it as a grand narrative I am magnetically swept up into the story, which with the leading of the Spirit gives me plenty of guidance for how I ought to be living my life. (Sadly, more guidance than I ever seem able to put into practice.) But this whole approach means I have to stop asking the self-centered question, “How does God fit into my life?” In its place I must ask, “How does my life fit into God’s story?” God’s narrative (i.e. the Bible and its ongoing trajectory as seen in the story of the church into our present era) must become my core identity.

Maybe it would do the church a lot of good to stop trying to sanitize and simplify the Bible. Maybe it is time to stop trying to carve out a few “spiritual nuggets” from the Bible and instead challenge and equip people to actually read and study the story with all of its messiness in order to actually understand what the authors of the Bible were really saying. What if we could allow ourselves to be captured by the narrative of what God is up to in our world? Perhaps people would be able to see the implications of what God is about in our world today. Maybe people would be finally free to read the Bible without fear, shame or embarrassment. Perhaps the church would find depth of soul in the midst of a shallow “me-centered” culture. If so, is it possible that Jesus’ followers could experience the presence and power of the Spirit in a way that would allow them to have something besides trite answers and oversimplified principles to offer our world so badly in need of a new guiding narrative?

The Right President

I’ve been paying a lot of attention to politics these days. Too much actually. I began getting excited about change in our nation’s capital many, many months ago and have focused more on politics and the characters running for office than any previous time in my life. I think this whole focus on the significance of politics was sharpened by my time in Kenya where I was confronted everyday with the urgency and excitement of their politics. However, as we pass the 8 weeks until the Election Day mark, I am more than a bit disillusioned about the political contest we are observing.

Our world is craving good leadership. People’s lives hang in the balance, societies (including our own) are on the edge of upheaval or collapse, and there is a fine line between peace and destruction (militarily, economically, environmentally, etc., etc.). All of this calls for a leader with character and vision. – A person who take risks to break the stalemate and apathy in the public square. It calls for a leader with spine… someone who actually has enough courage to be who they really are and say what they really think (assuming they actually are a decent human and have intelligent thoughts – not always a safe assumption). The world is ravenous for someone who has the intelligence and wisdom to move beyond the logical impasses of partisan propaganda and ideological naiveté. We are looking for an extraordinary individual who is humble yet bold… someone who is intelligent, articulate, inspiring and honest.

Instead we have a couple of guys who increasingly seem to be licking their fingers and putting them to the wind. Positions are shifting (but not out of conviction – which would be noble and honest) and the smokescreen of propaganda about the opponent is what makes the biggest splash. In spite of all of the rhetoric about change, they seem to have invited the same old advisers and the same old cast of political characters from years past to join their teams (in some cases)… each one arriving with his or her eyes to the most recent polls and an ear to a special interest group. The result is political tiptoeing, character assassination, partisan propaganda, and fear mongering.

This is deeply disappointing, but not without precedent. (doesn’t it happen every time? - You can see I'm a bit cynical at this point in the race.) The candidates (at least the ones I followed) started out this journey with an ideological vision of the preferred future of America and the world. They are now reduced to a couple of desperate men, clamoring to win the highest position on earth. Whatever it takes to win the presidency, these guys will do it. “Sell my soul? - Where do I sign up?” Forget about putting forward a courageous and honest vision for America… it is all about gaffe-covering and pushing down the opposition. Their advisers strategically pick interviews and script their candidates with “talking points” and “spin” so that these guys and gal know exactly what to say and think. They have become political robots.

Apparently the game is won by telling everybody what they want to hear (at least that is what the advisers seem to be scripting). In the end the desire to win has trumped the desire for truth. Approval addiction is the vice of politics… and it runs deeper than ever right now.

With all of these thoughts / opinions in my mind, I was reading in the Gospel of Mark recently about Jesus. The contrasts between these two wannabe messiah’s and Jesus is quite striking.

The presidential candidates walk on eggshells not trying to offend their constituents or put-off those whose approval they are dead-set on getting. But in all of the stories recorded about Jesus you never see Him with his finger to the wind or taking polls. Sometimes it seems like Jesus sought out opportunities to say things that were unpopular and offensive (as long as they were true). While Bill O’Reilly tries to convince us that he owns the “no-spin zone” it is quite obvious that this is hardly the case - as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert love to point out (admittedly to my delight). Jesus, on the other hand, seems completely content with “telling it like it is.” – No spin, no sugar coating, no setting up the hard-sell… just unadulterated truth. He speaks truth to power, tells the wealthy where to put their money, tells the purity gurus to clean up their own act, and tells those advocating violence to shove off. He is constantly disappointing people. Jesus goes about touching people He shouldn’t be touching, goes into places where He shouldn’t be going, invites the honored guests to sit at the foot of the table while inviting the beggars and bad characters to the head of the table. It appears as though if there is a social taboo to be broken, Jesus would find it and break it.

Jesus was not concerned about who He associated with - a near obsession of politicians. He invited a corrupt enemy sympathizer (a tax collector) into his inner circle of followers right along side a guy who had advocated the violent overthrow of Rome (a zealot). That is the equivalent of having an Al Qaida sympathizer and a trained CIA assassin in the same campaign strategy team. He had prostitutes and lepers as part of his tight-knit social circle. – Sort of like having a Vegas showgirl and an HIV+ male prostitute riding with you on the “straight talk express.”

As for His speaking style… He didn’t go around trying to get the good will of the people through telling his harrowing adventures of surviving death threats against Him or through telling about His time doing community service. In fact, most of His life was unknown. He never had a “convention” where people stood up and gave long-winded baloney-loaded speeches about how he was “the most honorable character they had ever met”, etc., etc. In fact, His dissenters were always questioning his authority, experience, pedigree and qualifications. When people tried to embarrass Him about His “bastard-like” birth story, He clarified that what matters is not who your physical father is, but what you do with your life – how you treat your neighbor and your enemy. He redefined the boundaries of family. He redefined the people of God. He redefined the character of God. He had a message of hope but He also had a message of judgment – and he wasn’t afraid to share either one. He didn’t have speechwriters and He didn’t have special stages built for Him to show off his best speaking style. He would often invite people to join Him on the campaign trail and other times He would insist that people not join Him. People would try to endorse Him, but He would sometimes reject their endorsements. His enemies demonized him, but He would never shame them by dragging up their dirt in the public arena. The “media” would try to trap Him, but he was intelligent and discerning enough to make their well-laid traps backfire on them. He baffled His wannabe advisors by ignoring virtually all of their suggestions. He was the original maverick. He was the true hope for change needed in Jerusalem and beyond. He was "change we can believe in."

Jesus lived His life seemingly unconcerned about gaining popularity and instead let His true colors shine. One of the more striking things about this is that, rather than backfire on Him, people saw that He was authentic and true to His word and to His true identity. He didn’t pander and couldn’t be co-opted by a special interest group or media tactic. He didn’t tell people things to make them like Him. He never promised what He couldn’t deliver. He was the same person with everyone.

What was the result of this upside-down way of doing things? This completely backwards way (according to current political theory) of doing public life resulted in Jesus becoming an intensely popular person with the masses. But the popularity was fleeting - soaring high one day and crashing the next. When things got pretty heated up, Jesus would take a few days in the wilderness or hide out on a mountaintop somewhere. He wasn’t caught up in His own raging popularity.

Approval addiction was not on Jesus list of vices. Actually, that was just it… there was no list of vices. Try as they may, the best His opponents could do was manufacture lies and misrepresent His statements (which of course they did). At the time they thought this worked… and it kind of did. He had serious enemies who were bent on doing fatal damage to his movement. One of Jesus inner circle turned on Him and betrayed Him over to His enemies while the crowds were out of sight. He was illegally prosecuted in a spur of the moment trial late at night. And with the help of backroom political deals between the power brokers of the day, they had Him publicly murdered in the most shameful manner of the day - as a traitor to His very own people with a sign mocking His political career hanging over His head.

Make no mistake about it; Jesus was a highly political character. His life was not that of a wandering mystic speaking “spiritual truths.” His claim was that of Messiah. A Messiah is a king. But, there was already a king on the throne ruling. And this king – Caesar - had a power structure that was being undermined by the revolutionary subversive message of the Reign of God being brought to bear through His representative: this man Jesus. Jesus was a threat to the political and social elite. He challenged the political, economic, social, and spiritual foundations of the empire. He was a dangerous man… too much of a maverick for Rome and the Jerusalem leadership. That is why He was put to death as an insurrectionist. His campaign of hope and change appeared to come to a grinding unfortunate halt.

History would probably not record this extraordinary man’s life had the story ended there. But the reason we know this story and the reason that people revere the name of Jesus to this day is that the story didn’t end there. The claim of more than 500 eyewitnesses is that His life didn’t end in the grave. These people claimed to have walked, talked, ate and spent time with a guy that was dead and in a grave. Clearly something extraordinary happened in this man’s life. Instead of having His life extinguished by his enemies, he transcended and actually turned the tide on the political and spiritual corruption that put Him to death. Instead of being the object of mockery due to a shameful death, Jesus’ death followed by His resurrection actually overturns the way of darkness and turns the whole tide of history. Jesus has the last laugh at the powers, systems, choices and evil that tried to strangle the way of truth, love, justice, mercy and peace - the way of God. Jesus’ resurrection vindicates everything he lived and taught. This is what gave birth to the movement of people who went about trying to live as members of a different Kingdom – an alternative community. These people had seen that there was a new way to be human… the way intended by God. And, this Way continues.

I (along with the rest of the world) am constantly tempted to look for contemporary messiahs… somebody I can vote for, trust and depend on. But I am continually disappointed by what I find. This is not a specific knock on any particular person… it is an honest critique of humanity. I’m at least as disappointed in myself as I am in any public figure.

But, I still want a leader who I can depend on… one who is intelligent, humble, honest, visionary, unselfish, inspiring, witty, gracious, just, and kind. As far and wide as I have looked, there is only one person that I can completely and honestly say fits in that category: Jesus. This is why I have thrown my life behind His campaign. His political platform is stunning, His leadership is unmatchable, His vision is nothing short of spectacular, and His sincerity is unquestionable... and I could go on (but I won't).

Come November 4, since Jesus is not on the ballot I will vote the person I think will do the best (considering the tremendous limitations referred to above) for our country and world, while preparing to be disappointed because Obama is not Jesus.

A Few More Thoughts On Love

In my last post (the really long one), I made the case that unconditional love should never be equated with or confused with unconditional relationships. Unconditional love exists whereas unconditional relationships do not. I find this clarification to be enormously helpful in understanding theology.

In this (much shorter) post, I want to suggest in a similar vein to the first post that although unconditional love (Greek - Agape) is the most noble form of love, it alone does not bring about the highest state of being. This is because this type of love is not reciprocal. As I went to great lengths to say in the last post, unconditional love comes with no guarantee of good feelings or pleasure. As relationally designed beings (reflecting the creator), we long for reciprocal relationships (in a similar sense that God longs for reciprocal relationship with humanity). The highest mode of living and the most desirable state of being comes from a reciprocal kind of love (Greek - Phileo). But it is important to note that true "Phileo" love comes as a result of two beings loving each other with "Agape" love (unconditional concern for the well-being of the other)... and then discovering that in the midst of this unselfish / self-giving love a level of trust, comfort, and safety develops such that true intimacy is possible. This is the kind of love that humans desire with each other and the kind of love that God desires with humanity. This type of love has conditions because it is reciprocal and only occurs in the context of relationship. This is the type of love which produces great delight... the closer the proximity the better... fear and insecurity are drowned out by trust... humor develops naturally... creativity is catalyzed, etc., etc. - All of this leads to a plain of existence that feels like being "fully alive." This is what humanity was made for. This is what God wants with (and for) His creation.

So this means that agape love is the means to a higher state of love (phileo). This may not sound profound to you at all... it's just that I have always heard agape love idealized as the ultimate when I think that what is ideal is really phileo love. But maybe I'm alone in this. (?)

Hell Is Love & Love Can Feel Like Hell

In the midst of one of the numerous stimulating conversations I have had recently with my friend Arlen, we stumbled onto the subject of “unconditional love." (What else can two unemployed wannabe theologians do but philosophize day and night?) Out of our discussion I was able to articulate some clearer thoughts about the nature of love, which had implications to all sorts of other topics. What follows are my thoughts as they have evolved since the conversation... (apologies for the length of this post)

Love is a term that is thrown around way too much and without much thought as to what it actually means. We live in a culture that has so many drastically different meanings for the term “love.” A person can say that she “loves” frozen yogurt and then in the next sentence talk about how she “loves” her husband or God. There is obviously a vast difference between enjoying a flavor sensation and a lifelong covenantal relationship.

So, let me be clear as to what I mean by "love" when I use the term. (I am trying to define love based on a scriptural understanding of the word.) I believe I am accurately deriving my definition of love from the scriptures when I say, love is unselfish concern for another’s well being. Love, scripturally speaking, is not about the feelings of the person doing the “loving.” Love is a conscious decision to seek the good of another person regardless of personal cost or feelings. Many times that “good” which you are seeking for the other person will include good feelings… but sometimes it won’t.

Much of the confusion about this in our culture is due to the English language. In many languages (so I’m told) there is adequate vocabulary distinction such that a) romance / erotic desire (“I love Susie” …meaning, “I want to kiss Susie and stay with her all night”) is distinguished from b) general appreciation / pleasure-giving (“I love mangoes” …meaning, “I could eat these things day or night”) which is also distinguished from c) unselfish concern for others (“I love bob too much to let him go down that road” …meaning, “I must tell him the truth regardless of how painful or awkward it is for the both of us; we need to talk tonight.”)

The reason I seek to make this distinction is because when the scriptures speak of love (Greek “Agape”), they are always speaking of the third definition (c) stated above. Jesus says, “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” If you try to substitute meaning “a” or “b” into this sentence it falls flat. Paul says, “But God proves His love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.” Again, this is not about Jesus seeking pleasure for Himself and certainly not about romance or erotic desire. This love is about how God through Jesus unselfishly sought the ultimate good of humanity.

Now, to the issue of unconditional love. When people talk about a marriage in which there is unconditional love, or unconditional love for children, or the unconditional love of God for humanity, there needs to be some nuance brought to that understanding. First off, I believe that such love is possible and that we ought to seek it (love understood to be defined in the way of definition “c” above). On the other side of the coin, I also want to say that there can be no such thing as “unconditional marriage.” There are always conditions to marriage. Conditions are healthy and necessary. Fidelity, honesty, appropriate use of money, conflict resolution, forgiveness, mercy, etc. (to name a few) all keep a marriage intact and (by necessity) characterize the very idea of that relationship. Without both parties maintaining some semblance of the “conditions,” the marriage would collapse or become a non-reality. Marriage (and any other true relationship) is a two-way street. It is possible, however, that one party could unconditionally love the other party without reciprocation and in the midst of a collapsing or collapsed marriage / relationship. Love (based on definition “c”) does not depend on reciprocity. In the case of a dissolving marriage in which one partner is dishonest, lacks fidelity, and doesn’t care about reconciliation the most loving thing for the other partner might be to let that person go their own way. To insist on forcing oneself on the other might amount to nothing more than a form of relational rape and a form of disrespecting control. This is why it is important to define love as not simply feelings, affection, or the desire to be in close proximity. Love is far bigger than those things because love involves seeking the good of the other and is based fundamentally on the other’s freedom of choice.

So, in order to clarify what I’m saying, here it is in shorthand: Unconditional love? Yes. Unconditional marriage? No – it doesn’t exist.

I think it is safe to broaden this principle to say: Unconditional love? Yes. Unconditional relationship? No – it doesn’t exist.

Any understanding of relationship that honors respect for another person’s freedom of choice must allow for the freedom for that person to walk away.

Based on this understanding, here is what I am advocating: Humans ought to seek to love each other (all people) unconditionally while realizing and accepting that relationships (by definition) cannot be unconditional. [For example, you can deeply care about seeking the good of a person who is chronically dishonest, but you are not able to have a relationship with that person without a basic level of honesty (which is a condition). – This is not an arbitrary rule… it is simply reality. A relationship not built on honesty (reality) is a sham… it is no relationship at all.]

I am convinced that this is the way that God loves humans. God loves us unconditionally. God is, and has, always been unselfishly seeking the good of humanity regardless of reciprocity (Unconditional love).

The New Testament makes clear what was already true in the Old Testament and what has always been true: God is deeply concerned about the good of the world He created even though the world is flashing its middle finger at Him. This attitude of God and the means by which to reconcile the problems created by humanity’s rejection of God are what the Biblical narrative seeks to unfold. It climaxes in Jesus demonstrating the heart of God and taking the initiative to reconcile and restore a broken world while dealing with the problem of evil.

God is not satisfied with merely expressing unconditional love toward humanity. God genuinely wants a relationship with His creation. Relationships, by definition, must have conditions and reciprocation. These conditions are not attempts to be arbitrary; they are a way of talking about universal, real relational dynamics and the way these relational dynamics impact the core of the relationship: trust and solidarity. God, like any other being, cannot and thus will not break the integrity of universe He created in order to force somebody into relationship with Himself. It wouldn’t be a relationship if He did. Relationships require freedom, choice and conditions.

Thus, it is possible for God to love all of humanity (including Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Jeffery Dahmer, or any other horrifically evil person) and yet not “save” them. “Saving” at its core is relational since God is saving people in order for those people to be in eternal relationship with Himself. God is “saving” people who want to be in relationship with Him (those who reciprocate His love). This is why Jesus can assure the thief on the cross that he is going to be saved (to use a biblical example).

Let me draw an even more precise meaning to all of this. Many people who want to be “saved” are really only interested in perpetuating a blissful eternal life of autonomy where they are enjoying the wonders of a perfect universe but still essentially their own god. They picture utopia (whatever that utopia might be for them). In many cases they use all of the right language (saving, grace, heaven, eternal life, etc), but fill the language with meaning that the scriptures have nothing to do with. This is why it is so important to recognize that “heaven” (as in “utopia”) is not the prize a person longs for. God is the reward. Full-unhindered intimacy with the creator is the trophy. Life with God is heaven. Heaven should never be conceived of as a place of utopia. It is a place with God… where God’s full presence is unconstrained and where “the relational cup overfloweth” (with God and with other humans).

This whole discussion helps me make more sense of a lot of stuff that I think gets really garbled in church / theological discussions. For instance, it helps remove the unhelpful and unbiblical tension between “faith and works.” (Ask me more about that if you want to know what I mean in detail).

One of the most helpful things this understanding of love assists me with is the concept of hell. From the perspective I am advocating regarding love, relationships with conditions, the nature of salvation and heaven, etc… hell takes on new meaning. Hell is not a place that a vindictive god throws his enemies in order to torture them for endless generations because they offended Him with their degenerate deeds or with their ignorance of His plan to rescue them (or because they never learned the name of Jesus, etc., etc.). Hell is the most loving thing that God can do with an individual that ultimately wants nothing to do with a universe that is continually celebrating the intimate presence of God… the God who embodies in Himself the essence of justice, peace, love, joy, and beauty. If someone wants nothing to do with this God why would they want to be in a place forever that is filled with the very presence of their enemy? (Answer: they wouldn’t.) It would be relational rape for God to force this person to live with Him. Thus, the gracious removal of a person who would find it torturous to be in a place of continual presence with their enemy is the most loving thing to do. The problem is where to remove this person to. If the whole universe is filled with God’s presence, there is no room for them where God is not. Additionally, the presence of such a person would be destructive to the sense of community existing among other humans as well. God cannot and will not ultimately allow a person to destroy His reconstructed universe by insisting on being their own selfish god. The answer to this dilemma then becomes the gracious and tragic extinguishing of the existence of a person fundamentally opposed to being in relationship with God and God’s creation. This is hell. Hell is an act of love. But love can feel like hell. As I said above, love has nothing to do with feelings because love is all about seeking the other person’s good. My feelings about the process or the result are not relevant to that definition of love. No one will be sadder about hell than God Himself.

After reflecting on all of this, I have come to see that the whole theological picture is reframed for me when the meaning of love is clarified.

Any thoughts?

Countercultural Stuff That Jesus Taught (Part I)

Non-violence:
Virtually everywhere I look in our society, violence is advocated as the necessary way to make the world work. For example:
• Warfare -We applaud a military going to war as long as we see them working on the side of justice. (Of course, justice is a bit slippery to define. Who doesn’t think their cause is righteous… or at least justified? No matter which side you talk to, everyone thinks they are on the side of good.)
• Stories - Within movies, TV, and books, violence is admired and celebrated – especially when it is used in vindication or revenge or in situations of perceived self-defense or the defense of other “innocent” people. As long as the right guy wins in the end, it doesn’t matter what it took to get there. (I’m not even referring to “shoot ‘em up films / shows / books that glorify violence in a gratuitous manner.)
• Video Games - How many video games would be left on the shelf if the ones advocating a violent approach to solving problems were removed?
• Penal System - When someone does a heinous / violent crime, the way to deal with it is to “push for the death penalty,” right? (Apparently another death vindicates the first.)

I have been reflecting on the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament writers on this topic. From all of the reflecting and studying I have done so far, I can find no way to justify the use of violence by a Jesus follower. Contrary to the pragmatist approach of our world, violent means are never justified (even by a “good” outcome). According to the New Testament teaching, human beings are not entrusted with the right to take another person’s life. In fact, in the climactic moment of the New Testament the only truly “innocent” (just, pure, noble, righteous) human being to ever live on planet earth refuses to use violent means to defend Himself and His cause He unjustly suffers and dies while at the same time forgiving his executioners and chastising His followers who “didn’t get it” because they attempted to use violence in His defense. How anyone can derive a legitimate foundation for violence (in self-defense or otherwise) out of this story is mystifying to me. Jesus clearly teaches, “Love your enemies” which I think means that we shouldn’t kill them.

I have had a number of discussions recently with people who disagree with the idea of universal non-violence (and especially with the “real world” out-workings of such an idea). The conversations are always stimulating. But as I see it, in the end it comes down to this: Do we make our ethical stance on this issue based on what seems to be pragmatic and expedient according to our view of “how the world works,” or do we submit ourselves to the univocal voice of the New Testament and Jesus on this issue?

For interest’s sake, let’s just say we take Jesus at His word about this… how does that impact the way we live? What does that mean about the video games we play (why would entertain ourselves for hours with violence that we find ourselves opposed to in real life?), the stories we celebrate (notice I said “celebrate” not necessarily watch / read / tell – you cannot isolate yourself from violence in our world… putting one’s head in the sand is a non-scriptural idea.), the patriotism expected of us (“support the troops”), the jobs we work at (see below), the actions we take when we or loved ones are threatened, etc.?

With regard to employment… should an aerospace engineer who is a Jesus-follower take a job working for a government contractor who designs military attack aircraft meant to destroy other human beings in conflict? Are they not assisting and abetting the cause of warfare and violence? Should a Jesus-follower work as a police officer if that means the potential of using deadly force against another human being? Admittedly, these are difficult questions.

But let’s be honest. These kinds of questions aren’t even on the radar screen of most Christians. Beyond this, they seem completely ridiculous when considered from the standpoint of our culture. But are Christians supposed to look to culture to set our ethical agenda? I am strongly advocating for a new breed of Jesus followers who take their cues from a different narrative – one that is often in marked contrast to the narrative that guides our culture. It may mean that Jesus-followers are laughed out of the public square. That’s ok, it wouldn’t be the first time. After all, Paul talks about how the gospel was a “stumbling block” to Jews and “foolishness” to the rest of the world (gentiles). Christians were marginalized and thought quite strange for the first couple of centuries of Christianity. But this is also the same era in which Christianity seems to have been most alive. Is that an accident? I don’t think so. As soon as Christianity became legitimized by the governing authorities and accepted as mainstream, it became diluted with all sorts of cultural baggage and assumptions that took the “edge” out of it. Now we live with a toothless, culturally adapted message. Who wants to give their life for that?

So, what are Jesus-followers supposed to do about the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament about violence? Can we put this question back on the table for discussion?

Intellectually Honest

Tonight I went to view a film called “Purple State of Mind” (http://www.purplestateofmind.com) about two men who were roommates in college. For one it was his first year as a Christian… for the other it was his last year. The film features their conversations 25 years later. After the film the two men were present to do a Q&A. The film was intriguing to me because it dealt with big issues that matter a lot to me. At the core of the film was a question that was implicitly being asked by the Atheist: “Is it possible to be a Bible believing Christian and be rational and / or intellectually honest?” He is not a hard-core militant atheist (like Dawkins), so he is unwilling to rule out the possibility. However, for now he is on the unbelieving side of the fence.

What really got me churned up inside was the fact that the Atheist was posing excellent and sincere questions to the Christian who then proceeded to dance around them and then give less-than-compelling answers. Before I am too hard on him, I do give him great credit for being in conversation with an atheist and I do think he is a sincere Jesus follower who has devoted his life to serving God faithfully. But, part of what I have come to realize is that our world is hungering for people who can articulate an intellectually honest worldview that also has the beating heart of spirituality at the core of it. Unfortunately, there are so many intellectually vacant forms of Christianity floating around supported by a well-developed and commercialized American religious subculture that seeks to disconnect rationality from faith (TBN, etc), that I often feel the desire to distance myself from the label of “Christian” not because I am ashamed of Jesus or the idea of an organized network of communities of Jesus followers, but because I am embarrassed to be associated with so much of the non-sense that comes with wearing that label.

This is part of what has deeply driven my desire to be an architect and leader of a different kind of Christian community. It is part of what makes me want to call what I am trying to do here in San Francisco a “Jesus Community” rather than a church. If you say “church” everybody already thinks they know what that is. For Christians it is a time slot in the weekend and / or a building. For non-Christians it is that place where you check your brain at the door… where you “believe” in spite of the evidence.

I believe that part of my mission in life is to rattle some Christians so that they are jarred to the point where they are forced to look at their assumptions… where they are compelled to think deeply about faith and its intersection with reality… where they are stirred to imagine and where they are made aware of their deep longing for relationship with their Maker. Nothing sucks the spiritual vitality out of a person faster than having their mind disengaged from their faith. Yet that is the condition of multitudes of people… a sort of spiritual malaise.

Much of that lack of intellectual vitality is directly related to fear. Many people consciously or unconsciously worry deep down inside that if they “test” their religious views against reality, they will find that they don’t hold water. This fear makes people settle for the comforts of familiarity. What a tragedy. The result is a state of quasi-comatose spirituality. Recently I was part of a group discussion where someone posed the question, “if I told you that I had three books which if you read them would devastate your faith… would you read them?” The room was silent. I restrained myself and looked around the room for a second while there was a stony silence. But I couldn’t hold myself back, “Yes, without a doubt” I said a bit too enthusiastically. Of course the question is sort of ridiculous since it would take far more than three books to destroy / change my faith. But the premise of the question holds: Am I looking for what is true – honest to reality – or am I looking to medicate myself with the comforts of familiarity? I have to say that I found it disturbing that it was actually a question that caused people to sit back and wonder. I believe that my life must be about the quest for truth and coherence or it is all pointless in the end. I’m not interested in easy answers, clichés, or even comforts if they rob me of my sense of meaning, humanity, and purpose. I desire more because I believe more is offered.

Was Wright Wrong?

Although the main scuffle appears to be past, the issue of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons that have been labeled “anti-American” has still been ringing in my ears. At the time when the controversy broke, all I saw were the sound bites that the media kept replaying over and over again… “God damn America,” etc. Even then, before I heard the fuller context of the sermons (which, by the way, helps make good sense of the sound bites), I was struck by how much Wright’s comments sounded like the Hebrew prophets (such as Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Hosea, John the Baptist, and the rest of the true prophets of Israel including Jesus). Again and again throughout the scriptures, God speaks against peoples and governments that oppress the poor, destroy the earth, and suppress the truth. But the strongest words are always reserved for God’s own people… the people He loves in a unique way. The whole book of Hosea is based on the polemical premise of God calling His own people a whore. God gets so fed up with His people’s flagrant disregard for issues of justice and faithfulness to Him that He sends in the Assyrians and then the Babylonians to utterly destroy Israel. Later, John the Baptist and Jesus both predict a bloody and destructive end to Israel – which happens 40 years later. For God, the prophets, and Jesus criticizing one’s own people is not a traitorous activity… it is quite possibly the most helpful and loving thing to do. But if the same logic that has been applied to Rev. Wright is applied to Israel and the prophets, God and the prophets are anti-Israel and possibly anti-Semitic.

It is ironic that Christians are among the ones who are responding negatively to Rev. Wright’s comments. To me that speaks to the fact that most American Christians have not been reading their Bibles. It would be difficult to miss this enormous biblical theme if you even take a brief glance at any of the prophetic literature in scripture (which makes up a huge portion of scripture, by the way). It saddens me that Barack Obama quasi disowned Rev Wright due to the pressure of media. If he was being theologically honest, he should have defended his pastor. However, political expedience won the day. – Don’t get me started about the way the political game never ceases to disappoint me.

Two things stand out to me with regard to this issue:

1) To point out the evil or brokenness of one’s country, culture or faith community is often the most patriotic, loyal, or noble thing that can be done. This act takes enormous courage and requires integrity. Beyond this, it is additionally noble to work to right the wrongs that one points out. In the case of Rev. Wright, his church has been addressing issues of justice, poverty, marginalization, etc for many years. I applaud him as a man who has pointed to injustice and tried to do something about it. Is he perfect? Of course not. (Were the prophets?) Do I disagree with him on certain issues? Yes. But, do I have respect for him? Yes, because I see him in the prophetic tradition.

2) We must resist definitions of “patriotism” that are merely enthusiastic affirmations of whatever happens to be currently advocated from the powers that be. True patriotism is calling people to seek the greater good for the citizens of the country and, ultimately, the good of the world - even if it means being critical of one’s own country (whether it be its history, leaders, foreign policy, taxation or whatever). As a Jesus follower I am especially wary of “patriotism” because it so often bleeds into a blind favoring of “me and my own kind” (nationalism / tribalism) over the rest of the world. This is unacceptable for the Jesus follower who is part of a larger family that is made up of people from every nation, people, culture, and language. We must seek an identity that transcends nation, ethnicity, culture, tribe, family, and gender.

I recommend these links for more on this topic…

Interview with Bill Moyer:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

Time Magazine Article:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1734809,00.html

FYI: Should you understand me to be saying that I am not blessed to be an American living with the benefits that I have here, you have misunderstood me. Secondly, I am not defending all of the statements that Wright has made. For example, I have to admit that I am quite skeptical about the idea that the HIV virus was created and released onto the Black community. However, as the media continues to mock him I think it is important he actually be given a true "hearing" - not just the sound bites. Again, I recommend the interview with Moyers above.