Can you guess who's missing here?

Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!-- Acts 2:9-11

Who's missing here? I don't see any references to China, India, Russia, South America, or the United States. What gives?

The above nations mentioned are described as "every nation under heaven" (v.5). Have we missed an important truth here? Could it be that what we call "The Great Comission" has already been accomplished? Before you answer, look for clues from Paul's letter to the Colossians, chapter 1. Can you find where, according to St. Paul, the Gospel had been preached? I'll wait here while you look.

Back already? Did you read Colossians 1:23b? So, why are we busting our heinies and spending oodles and oodles of dollars to accomplish something that was already accomplished in the first century? Didn't Jesus say that when this was accomplished "the end" would come (Matthew 24:14, Mark 13:10). Has "the end" already taken place? I have a hard time believing that the Gospel would be preached to all nations back in the first century, but the end doesn't come for an indefinite amount of time. 2000+ years, to be exact.

If "the end" hasn't occured yet, then everything that was written in the Scriptures would have been irrelevant to those who first received the message. I think that's because we've been taught to expect the cataclysmic destruction of the planet. It could be that that's not what "the end" meant.

Have we been essentially waiting for something that has already taken place?

?????????????????

Clearing Up Some Things

I don't know how you reacted to my post about Biblical application, but I hope you didn't get the impression that I believe that the Bible says nothing at all to us today, because I believe it does. What I object to are the attempts made by people to turn the Bible into something that it's not. It's not a book of rules, and it isn't a "how to" manual. It's the account of redemptive history. It's the story of God claiming the Throne as Servant/King. It's a demonstration of what happens when people start messin' with God, especially trying to mold God into a caterer to our individual whims. If people are just going use God as a wishing well or a life coach or an advice columnist, it's better for them to just leave God alone, lest they become enslaved to themselves.

As the narrative goes, through Jesus, God set humanity free from this bondage to self. It frees us from having to present before God our meager attempts to be our own sources of righteousness or trying to score some brownie points with God.

So when I hear "preachers" say something like, "Look people in the eye when you talk to them," I cringe. It's good advice, but it's better left to the Dale Carnegie Seminars. It doesn't belong in preaching.

So, when I write something along the lines of "the Bible has little or no application today", I mean that it has none in a legalistic sense, insofar as it is used as a self-improvement manual.

As I see it, we don't have to read the Scriptures as God "telling us what to do". We can read it as God breaking our chains as God fully inaugurated a new covenant that is characterized by God being known by everyone, from the least to the great; forgiveness of sin by God having a sudden case of amnesia; and God living in and among us. We are privileged to live with this realization. And you realize more than you think.

A Wonderful Quote

There was a quote from the movie Bridge to Terebithia that was so moving for me that I haven't forgotten it. I don't remember the names of the characters, but 3 kids were riding in the back of a pickup truck, and they were talking about the Bible on their way home from church. One of the girls said that she doesn't believe in hell because she couldn't fathom that God had the time to worry about that when he had to take care of the rest of creation. The other girl, a churchgoing Christian, was quite aghast and said she believes in hell because it's in the Bible, but she's scared of the possibility of going to such a place. The first girl then said something I will never forget:

You believe the Bible because you have to, and you hate it. I don't have to believe in the Bible, and I think it (the Bible) is wonderful!

What a great line!! And no wonder there are so many lapsed or completely delinquent Christians, while the rest of humanity avoids Christianity like the Black Plague. The Bible has been presented as something that is to be believed unconditionally under penalty of eternal, everlasting torment. Suffer now, or suffer later. Other times, the Bible is seen as a book of rules for good behavior. These are the impressions we Christians give.

I love the Bible! It's Good News and should be presented that way. I don't think it was written to be despised. But the way the Bible is presented leaves many people with no choice. They hate it, and leave it on their bookshelves to collect dust.

Bible Application

Why is it that many people insist that the Bible has to "apply to my everyday life" or else it's not worth the time? I hear this unending refrain from churches, that they want to help you apply the Bible to your everyday life ad nauseum. It's starting to sound more and more like a bunch of sales gimmicks. And judging by the audiences being attracted by the likes of Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and Paula White, people are buying. Me thinks the masses have been had.

I mean, face it-- who wants to hear about a dead guy who came back to life two thousand years ago? How dull! Hardly worth getting up out of bed. Give me a "how to" list and I'll listen. It has to apply to my life.

Why? Isn't this just an example of hubris? What if the Bible has no application to everyday life whatsoever? What's so bad about that? Are we so insecure that we need to get life advice from the church? I'd love to put a huge sign out in front of my church:

THE BIBLE HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH YOUR EVERYDAY LIFE! ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT IT DOES IS FEEDING YOU A LINE OF CRAP!!

I don't want to worship a God who just wants to boss me around with "to do" lists and bird dog me all day long. I want to worship a God who surrounds me with grace and reminds me of what God has done to bring freedom from the various yokes of evangelical slavery that is so prevalent today.

Look, the Bible is an ancient book written to an ancient audience that lived on the other side of the planet. Many of the situations faced by the Biblical writers don't exist in 21st century U.S. and A. We are in a completely different time in a completely different culture. When we try to make direct application we become cloaked in very silly anachronisms. Why can't we just say that and be done with it?

Personally, I don't find the Bible to be applicable. I find it to be edifying and complete. I can read Scripture and reflect on what those ancient people went through and how they understood their interactions with God without having to look for ways to enslave myself with miserable principles and rules. I feel that I should let the Bible tell its own story on its own merits without me foisting my insecurities onto its pages.

Flesh Versus Spirit

In much of western thought the composition of a human being consists of two parts-- body and soul-- "body" being our material existence, and "soul" being our immaterial existence. Sometimes we use the terms "flesh" and "spirit". We run into problems when we put the emphasis on one over the other. Some of the most awful heresies have resulted from these pointed distinctions. One was called "Gnosticism", which taught that the material body was "evil", but the immaterial soul was the highest good and needs to escape from the evil body. The result was adherents of Gnostic systems either indulged the body or deprived the body, neither of which makes for a peaceful existence. In any event, the human composition is thought to be made of these two parts.

The Scriptures are not very much concerned with the human makeup as much as the environment the human being inhabits. This follows more of the contours of Hebraic thought. In Middle Eastern thinking, the human being is a unified whole, and there are no sharp distinctions between "body" and "soul". In fact, when addressing human composition, Scripture actually equates the two terms.

However, two different terms are used to address two different modes of existence of a human being, and these terms are usually descriptive of beliefs, attitudes, and religious environment. The terms are "flesh" and "spirit", and they are never equated in Scripture.

"Flesh" is a term that describes a person who attempts to garner favor with God through pulling himself up by his own bootstraps. "Spirit" describes a person who never depends on his own merit but rests in the knowledge that he is loved and accepted by God unconditionally.

The New Testament employs these terms to make a distinction between the Old and New Covenants. Living by the Old Covenant Law was called living "in the flesh", while living on the merits of Christ and the New Covenant was called living "in the Spirit". The early Christians were in the process of transitioning from being "in the flesh" to being "in the Spirit". This was their struggle. They were simul iustus et peccator, sinner and saint, flesh and spirit, at the same time. This happened because the New Covenant existence was gradually coming to the fore, while the Old Covenant existence was becoming obsolete. The Book of Hebrews really fleshes this out (pardon the pun!).

The meaning for us is that we are no longer living "in the flesh" because the Old Covenant economy is forever collapsed and of no consequence. The New Covenant age, ushered in by Christ, is in full effect. We are now "in the Spirit", all because of what Jesus did. That's why Scripture talks about things such as "The New Heavens and the New Earth", the New Creation, "putting off" the old and "putting on" the new. That's why John the Baptist said, "I must decrease (as a representative of the Old Covenant) while he (Jesus) must increase (as the bringer of the New Covenant). This kind of language typifies the New Testament.

Living in the Spirit doesn't mean that you become invisible to the naked eye. It merely means that our attempts to garner favor with God to avoid God's wrath are unnecessary because God's wrath has been completely spent and God's favor is without condition!

Toxic Evangelism

A phrase that is oft repeated is: Thousands of people will die tonight without saving faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
The implication is these people are going to burn forever in hell.

Think about this for a moment. If you approach a person with the attitude that they are going to burn forever in hell when they die and you must share your faith with him/her, how will you treat that person? Wouldn't you tend to treat them very poorly in various and sundry ways? Wouldn't you be acting out of desperation to save that person's immortal soul? Wouldn't you feel forced to think of yourself, albeit unconsciously, to be somewhat of a superhero and the other person somewhat of a festering leech who can't take care of him/herself? Wouldn't you feel a bit resentful for having to be in this situation in the first place? I call this Toxic Evangelism.

Desperation has always been lousy motivation to share the Christian faith, partly because it's conducive to guilt-tripping for Christians who don't really feel like acting like a superhero, and partly because Christians would be acting on an impulse based on something they really don't know for sure. What happens when a person dies is none of our business anyway. Let's let God decide that with the understanding that God is merciful beyond our wildest dreams.

Christians should only share their faith when it is their highest joy. People will think Christians are crazy only when the people sense desperation or guilt. That's why I blog about faith issues-- God, as revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, is my highest joy! I want to share my joy with you, not my desperation or my guilt. That doesn't mean that God has to be your highest joy. Maybe God isn't. That's okay-- I think God can handle it and God won't hold it against you!

Most people do not have God as their highest joy. If they did, our churches would be packed on Sunday mornings. As it stands now, there is little reason for people to change their Sunday plans. Toxic evangelism won't solve this. But I do think that if matters of faith are approached with joy, and even perhaps a sense of whimsy, then the state of Christianity in America can begin to take on a new and invigorating life.

Religiosity

This might sound a bit odd coming from someone who makes a living off of religion, but the more I think about this the more I'm convinced that religion, any religion, is not necessary. I have no doubts that religion has done much good in the world. I have no doubts that religion has been a fuel for some of the most horrific scenes of the human drama. I don't see the existence of religion as an issue of good or bad. I question the necessity of having a religion at all.

It could be argued that religion is necessary insofar as it serves as a moral compass for people. That may or may not be true, but most expressions of religion have bogged themselves down in this area through behavior modification and judgmentalism.

Then there's the battle over which religion is "right". Christianity? Islam? Judaism? Buddhism? Hinduism? Shinto? Baha'i? Who's got it right? Each individually would say "we" are right and everyone else is wrong. Christianity is especially good at this, as it has always made that claim. Islam does the same thing. Then along come the atheists who say that none of them are right because there is no god. On the other end of the spectrum are the Universalist Unitarians who say that all of them are right and serve as different pathways to god. Frankly, I think all of these groups are trying to bounce billiard balls.

It doesn't make much difference to me who's right or how many. My question is, "Are they necessary vehicles for God to interact with humanity?" Is it true that God needs a religious system to reveal Himself? IMO, religion has only served as a vehicle for humanity to interact with God. And perhaps humanity may perceive a need for that vehicle, as it gives people a sense of meaning and purpose. But perception doesn't equate with necessity.

I know this will never happen, but what would result if every religious organization in the world decided to shut down and liquidate their assets? I know that I would end up seeking employment elsewhere. But would people all of a sudden become lost? They might be sad or angry, but that doesn't mean they are lost. Can I be completely honest here? It would not bother me one bit if every church, synagogue, mosque, diocese, headquarters, temple, meditation center, sangha, etc., etc., all of a sudden closed their doors.

I believe in God. I believe that God was revealed ultimately in the person of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Bible. I even believe that God uses Word and Sacrament to interact with us. But does this mean that I'm therefore obligated to belong to a religious organization, like a church? The argument could be made that a church with ordained clergy is the only place one would have any exposure to Word and Sacrament ministry, and so is therefore necessary. But necessary for what? For salvation? If that's the case, then Word and Sacrament become legalistic requirements instead of signs which point us to God's Kingdom. They were never intended to be used as barriers between humanity and God.

Thoughts on this?

Evil

I'm finding that the Bible challenges conventional notions of evil. If you were to ask the average person on the street to define "evil", most would say something along the lines of crimes against humanity, such as murder or genocide. If asked to name a specific "evil" person, the answers would range from Osama bin Laden to George W. Bush. I don't begrudge anyone this definition or these examples. In fact, I would even agree that there is much "evil" in this world as we define that word. The problem for me comes in when the attempt is made to foist these definitions onto the Bible when it talks about evil.

Biblically speaking, evil is a barrier, or something that is in the way. An "evil" person would then be defined as someone who places a blockade in the path of someone who is trying to enter the Kingdom of God. The "evil" committed is not so much a crime against humanity as it is a legalistic requirement.

For example, in a previous post I wrote about the churches in Galatia who were being overrun by Judaizers, who were saying that there are requirements for following Jesus, the greatest of which is circumcision. In effect, the Judaizers placed a barrier between people and Jesus, and this would be defined by Paul as evil. He even says that much in another letter:

Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we (Christians) who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh... Philippians 3:2,3

So, Biblically speaking, evil is defined as any act or regulation that attempts to score brownie points with God, as if God can be manipulated. This in effect serves as a barrier between humanity and God.

Jesus shattered all of those barriers by his death on the cross, the claim of which is one of the salient features of the Pauline corpus. The crucifixion of Jesus defeated evil as that word is defined in Scripture. The cross never guaranteed that there would never be murderous crimes against humanity ever again. But it does guarantee that the way to God is cleared away and any and all hinderances have been removed for good. There are no legalistic requirements for entrance into the Kingdom of God. The reign of God is absent of evil.

We Torment Each Other

"We must forgive each other our arising, for our existance always torments others. The Golden Rule in the midst of this mutual misery has always been, not to do no harm, but as little as possible; and not to love one another, but as much as you can."
-- Ken Wilber

Your Quality World

Everyone has what's known as a quality world-- people, places, and things that help you feel good and make you happy. We are genetically disposed to feeling as good as we possibly can, and we have pictures in our minds of what that looks like. And so, we pursue those things which make us feel good and happy. It's when we satisfy the pictures of our quality world that we are the happiest.

As I was thinking about this, I was struck by the realization that this is why churches aren't as full as they used to be. Church is not in the quality world of a lot of people. On any given Sunday morning most people are going to place themselves where they are the happiest, and that just might include sleeping in, hanging out with friends, going to the mall, or whatever.
Sunday morning church attendance used to be in the quality world of most Americans, primarily because most of an individual's social needs were met at church. The local church was the social hub of many communities and neighborhoods. But those days are gone, and most mainline churches are struggling to keep themselves in the quality world of people. They do the best they can to pull out all of the stops to give people a reason to hop out of bed and into the pews. Some churches have figured out how to do this, and so we've witnessed the rise of megachurches. Well-established churches watch with envy as people who used to occupy their sanctuaries are now flocking to the auditoriumesque settings, rock bands, and Jumbotrons of the megachurches.

But there are still countless others who don't darken the door of any church whatsoever because, while many of them believe in God, God is just not in their quality world for whatever reason. I think these are the people who see God as either a sadistic ogre, or an absentee landlord, or a combination of the two. And when they are presented with the opportunity of attending a church, they give a polite "No, thank you."

These are the people I want to talk to because the God they have been taught to believe in, and therefore avoid like the plague, doesn't exist. Honestly, the way I hear a lot of religious leaders talk about God would make me want to be elsewhere on a Sunday morning as well. If God is really the way they say then I would much rather be an atheist. I think I actually was for a while.

But I now know better than that. God is in my quality world and it would be devastating to me to take God out. I just can't do it. One thing I know for sure: if God is not in your quality world, then your picture of God is probably warped and needs some revisioning. If that's the case, then let's talk!