Energion Direct

Author: empower

  • what did jesus mean?

    by David Cartwright

    ย Coverย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย  Itโ€™s funny what we remember and what we forget. Some things stick with us for a lifetime. Others refuse to come to light. One insight that has stayed with me now for fifty years is a comment one of my professors made while I was in divinity school. The class was discussing various views of the doctrine of the Eucharist. Speaking of Reformation viewpoints, the professor said, โ€œWhat you have to realize is that Lutherโ€™s question was, โ€œWhat does the text say?โ€ Calvinโ€™s question was, โ€œWhat does the text mean?โ€ That is the basis of their disagreement on Jesusโ€™ words, โ€œThis is my body.โ€ Luther came away from the text with a doctrine of the ubiquitous presence of Christ in the elements, while Calvin believed in a memorial interpretation. After all, as Calvin put it, Christโ€™s body cannot be in the elements since Jesus ascended into Heaven. Needless to say, the discussion has continued to this day, with a sordid history of in-hospitality on both sides of the divide. What did Jesus mean when he said, โ€œThis is my body.โ€?
    Well, thatโ€™s not the only scriptural saying of Jesus we could reflect on. Thereโ€™s an interesting place in the Gospel of Luke (Chapter 22) that suggests that some of Jesusโ€™ disciples were carrying weapons. Earlier in Chapter 10, Jesus had explicitly told his disciples to go out with no bag, no purse, no sandals. Now he tells them to sell their cloak and buy a sword. Picking up on this, the disciples say โ€œLook, Lord, here are two swords,โ€ most likely the ever-present near-Eastern dagger. Jesus replies, โ€œIt is enough.โ€ What on earth could he mean? Does he mean that two swords are enough? Thatโ€™s all they need. Some commentators say no. These commentators say that this is not what Jesus meant at all. Others take a slightly different tack. They say that when Jesus saw that even his disciples were carrying swords, his heart was broken. They hadnโ€™t gotten his message of non-violence. Still others say that Jesus is simply acknowledging that there is no way around violence in this world. โ€œLet them have their way.โ€ And sadly, even his disciples will be a part of it.
    Obviously, the interpretation of this passage continues to cause us to reflect on the question, โ€œWhat did Jesus mean?โ€ The Two Sword passage has been used by some to justify going to war and by others to justify having nothing to do with war. Personally, I can see how these scriptures might apply both to situations of war and of non-violence. That is why I personally cannot conclude that Jesus is a pacifist, as many believe; nor do I think heโ€™s an insurrectionist, as at least one is saying these days. Taken together with other things Jesus had to say, these scriptures help me see what the other side is talking about. Specifically, Luke 10 and Luke 22 taken together at least force us to ask the right questions, if not ultimately arriving at the answers weโ€™re looking for. For instance, what are we to make of the use of drones in air strikes? What would Jesus think of this? As a Christian, all I can say is that finally itโ€™s up to us to make the hard decision based on what we think Jesus means. That is the one thing I am confident that Jesus asks of us.
    Next time: What did Jesus say?

     

  • What would Jesus do?

    by David Cartwright

    ย ย Coverย ย ย ย ย ย ย  In my book on the paradoxical teachings of Jesus, there are three questions that prompted my quest for answers and shaped the course of all fifteen meditations on the sayings of Jesus. โ€œWhat did Jesus say?โ€, โ€œWhat did Jesus mean?โ€, and โ€œWhat would Jesus do?โ€ Although, thatโ€™s the most helpful order to deal with the questions, most often that is not the way these questions are experienced. Usually, I find that most of us proceed the other way around. We begin with โ€œWhat would Jesus do?โ€ Then turn to โ€œWhat did Jesus mean?โ€
    And finally arrive at the most basic one, โ€œWhat did Jesus say?โ€ Maybe, because the most common approach appears to begin with the most obvious and least difficult. For my part, thereโ€™s enough obscurity and difficulty all along the way. However, in these three posts, I have decided to begin with the usual experience of the action question, โ€œWhat would Jesus do?โ€
    Not too long ago, it was very popular in many Christian circles to wear a little wrist band with the initials, WWJD. As a pastor, I remember seeing many young people in my congregation with these bracelets. Also, around the same time, there were visible yellow wrists bands with the words, LIVE STRONG, a promotion of Lance Armstrong, when he was at his best and highest in popularity. These are two approaches to living the good life. One, a call to reflection, and the other, an admonition to perfection. Neither of these approaches provides a concrete answer or program on how exactly one is to go about this. The best thing about both of these approaches is that they leave the specific outcome up to the person wearing the bracelet. We all know what happened to Lance Armstrong, and I havenโ€™t seen many of those bracelets around recently. For that matter, I havenโ€™t seen a WWJD wrist band in a long while either. Still as a Christian pastor, I think that these approaches are not altogether off the beaten track to good ethical living.
    But looking for a definitive answer from Jesus can be quite challenging. For many times, itโ€™s not all that clear what Jesus would do, and often times it gets down to โ€œit all depends.โ€ Take for instance, the matter of the response to Jesusโ€™ healings. One time Jesus tells a man cured of leprosy not to tell anyone about what has happened (Mark 4) However, at another time, Jesus seems perfectly content to let another cured man go and spread the good news (Mark 5). What are we to make of this? It just so happens that the first man is a Jew in Jewish territory, and it is early in Jesusโ€™ ministry, and Jesus is trying to be on good terms with the authorities. To the other cured man, a Gentile in โ€œthe Gerasenesโ€, Jesus seems to be saying that the man can speak his piece, because at the moment the environment is receptive to what Jesus is about.
    What would Jesus do? And what would Jesus do today in the 21st century? It all depends. But one thing is clear. There is always an appropriate response, but it may differ under specific circumstances.
    Next time: What did Jesus mean?

  • How is the church to interpret the cross of Jesus today?

    by William Powell Tuck

    CrossWithout question, the cross is the central symbol of Christianity. But the centrality of the cross is far more than symbolic; it represents finality– an act of God. As Paul is bold to claim, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (II Cor. 5:19). Through the central act of the cross, Jesus died once for all for the sins of humanity. Paul and other New Testament writers put the cross t the heart of their preaching and teaching. Paul declared that he delivered to the churches what he had received from earlier Christians how Christ died for our sins (I Cor. 15:3 and 11:23).
    Many today wonder what the death of a prophet from Nazareth, who lived two thousand years ago, has to do with them. “What could be its relevance for me now?” they ask. But I think F. W. Dillistone is correct when he boldly states in his book, The Christian Understanding of Atonement, “Indeed I am confident that there is no doctrine of the Christian faith which has more points of contact with life in the modern age.” The cross of Jesus addresses our emptiness, aloneness, suffering, pain, rejection, sins, alienation, and the questions arising out of God’s silence.
    The variety of images which Paul used to write about the death of Jesus shows that the cross touches life at many places. It is my prayer that those who read these pages about the cross of Jesus will sense anew the point of contact which this cross makes with their lives. The cross of Christ is not merely an ancient event which occurred two thousand years ago, but curiously affects our present situation today.
    William law, captured the truth of the centrality of the cross over 200 years ago in the following words from A Serious Call to A Devout and Holy Life:
    The Christian’s great conquest over the world is all contained in the mystery of Christ upon the Cross. It was there, and from thence, that He taught all Christians how they were to come out of, and conquer the world, and what they were to do in order to be His disciples. And all the doctrines, Sacraments, and institutions of the Gospel are only so many explications of the meaning, and applications of the benefit, of this great mystery.
    The New Testament is filled with many images which the various writers employ to depict the power of God which was revealed in the cross of Christ. Paul used the image of justification which he took from the law courts. He drew pictures of redemption and emancipation from the slave market, reconciliation from the image of friendship, adoption from family life, propitiation or ransom from the sacrificial system of Judaism, sanctification from their worship practices, and the view of setting person’s account right from the accounting system. Many theologians have built their theological system around one of these pictures.
    But the New Testament does not give just one interpretation of Christ’s death on the cross. There are many. A casual glimpse into the New Testament discloses images of Christ’s death as sacrifice, substitution, metaphors drawn from the law courts, expiation, forensic, satisfaction, example, revelation, deliverer, representative, suffering servant, lamb, and many others.
    No single one of these images contains all of the truth about what God has done in Christ’s death. All of these images underscore the great mystery involved in the God who has loved and redeemed us on the cross. The cross can never be reduced to images of legal, judicial, transferring of guilt, paying off a debt, contracts with the devil, appeasing an angry God, etc. All of these images are just illustrations of the power and mystery of what God has done in Christ on the cross. No one of these pictures can contain the whole of the mystery.
    In my book, The Church under the Cross, I seek to examine the unfathomable meaning of the cross for the church today.

  • How can we develop a real discipline of prayer when God seems silent?

    by William Powell Tuck

    Throughout my life I have sought to commune with God. I have undertaken this endeavor in many places. I have found moments of contemplation in quiet, small, white-framed country churches, in large traditional or contemporary-designed urban churches, in ancient Gothic cathedrals in Europe, in a Quaker Meeting House, in tent meetings, by lakes, rivers, creeks or sea shores, on secluded wooden mountainsides, on top of an extinct volcano, on white and black sand beaches, by campfires at night, before a blazing fire in my own den, in my study, on park benches, walking through multicolored hillsides in the fall, pausing beside a snow blanketed field, beside waterfalls, jogging along roadsides, following the path of saints from the past, secluding myself from others, fasting, finding an oasis of quiet in a noisy city and immersing myself in its stillness, and in many other ways. In many and varied modes, I have looked for ways to meditate. I have seldom found this desire so easily met or the place and conditions ideal. I have often been embarrassed to admit that praying has not come so easily or naturally to me.
    I thought for a long time that this was simply a reflection on my personality or background. I soon discovered, however, in my Christian pilgrimage that most persons I know struggled with the same difficulty. Too many laypersons were content to have their pastor do their praying for them on Sunday morning. Prayer was not their โ€œthing.โ€ In our busy, modern world, prayer seems so remote, old-fashioned, and impractical. โ€œLeave prayer to the professional holy men and women. We have real work to do,โ€ they say.
    Yet, I have heard ministers complain because laypersons interrupt their time for praying and give them so much busy work they have that they have little time to pray. One minister I know got in trouble with his church because he refused to give up the time he had set aside for prayer to attend a denominational breakfast meeting. He considered his prayer time so important that he would not let anything change it, even a denominational church meeting.
    On the other hand, I have heard lay persons express dismay that their minister was not a praying person and refused to offer them any spiritual guidance. I have also known many devoted ministers and laypersons who have longed to deepen their spiritual life. My spiritual life has been enriched by both laypersons and ministers. I know one layman who arises each morning at 5:30 a. m. and prays and meditates for an hour. He has continued this practice for twenty-five years. I know a minister who sets aside several hours a day for quiet a reflection. Are these persons exceptions? I am afraid they are.
    I am convinced that one reason that more laypersons and ministers do not spend more time in meditation is not because these persons do not love God or the Christ-like way, but they lack spiritual discipline to aid them in their religious journey. My book, Lord, I Keep Getting a Busy Signal, is one pilgrimโ€™s suggestions on what has been meaningful to him. I have not tried to offer more than a brief sketch to throw some light on the path. I do not believe that our habits of superficial prayer time will ever change until we take seriously the necessity for spiritual disciplines.

    Order Lord, I Keep Getting a Busy Signal here: https://energiondirect.info/ministry/lord-i-keep-getting-a-busy-signal

  • Whatโ€™s Beyond Death?

    by William Powell Tuck

    Untitledย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย  In one of the churches I served as pastor, a high school student wrote a paper entitled, โ€œThe End of Time.โ€ He began his paper with this sentence: โ€œThis paper will tell and explain about the end of time.โ€ Thatโ€™s a remarkable claim for a high school student! But thatโ€™s the only time I felt I had all of the answers to the Doctrine of the Last Things. When I was in high school, I preached a youth revival in my home church in Lynchburg, Virginia and I spoke with authority on the Second Coming of Christ, Hell and Heaven. I have not been so knowledgeable since!
    The theological term for โ€œthe last thingsโ€ is eschatology. Eschatology is the Christian doctrine which is concerned with the final end of humanity. It focuses on matters such as death, the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the immortality of the soul, the final judgment, heaven and hell. As I reflected on these topics, I realized that these themes are at the heart of the Christian faith, but it is difficult to voice with clarity what we mean by them.
    Although there is no clear, simple, New Testament answer on all of these issues, the New Testament is unequivocal in its hope for men and women in Jesus Christ. No one can speak with certainty about such matters as the mystery of death, the resurrection, heaven and hell, the second coming, or the final judgment of God. However, the New Testament does offer some concrete pointers which I believe can be helpful to us. I invite you to join me as we look to see if we can gain some insight to determine the future hope for those who die in Christ.
    The journey toward the โ€œundiscovered countryโ€ is filled with uncertainty, puzzling questions, strange reflections and enigmatical images, but it also travels across the bridges, mountains, and valley paths of mystery, faith, hope and anticipation. As Christians, we should travel toward our final destination with quiet confidence and Christian assurance.
    The Christian approaches death with the awareness that “the last enemy to be destroyed is death.” Death is not our “natural” end, but is an enemy of God and stands in opposition to God’s ultimate will. “Death is the peak of all that is contrary to God in the world, the last enemy,” says Karl Barth, “thus not the natural lot of man, not an unalterable divine dispensation.” But Jesus Christ has already won the battle against death and so Paul can shout: “Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Cor. 15:57). Death for the Christian becomes a transitional path from this life to the next; it is not a deadโ€‘end street but a thoroughfare that leads into another dimension of living. “Death is no more the dark door that shuts forever behind man,” Brunner says, “but the opened door through which he enters into true life.”
    Imagine how a baby might try to philosophize if he or she were able to contemplate another kind of life outside his or her mother’s womb. What could she use as a base from which to speculate or surmise? How could she understand life free from surrounding liquid? What does she know of light, or breath, or food, or eating? What does he know of choices, companionship, friends, work, art, or reading? Is it not possible that to the infant the birth process is a crisis which is a sort of “death” as he or she leaves the safe, comfortable, secure world where every need had been met? A new and marvelous world awaits; he or she has no resources to imagine what it will be likeโ€‘and how wonderfully different from the other world. Death for the Christian is a “birthing” from the physical world to the spiritual realm. How can we possibly describe it; words fail us. “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor. 2:9).
    In my book, The Journey to the Undiscovered Country: Whatโ€™s Beyond Death? I deal with some of these issues.

    Order The Journey to the Undiscovered Country here: https://energiondirect.info/theology/the-journey-to-the-undiscovered-country

  • Discussing Without Disgusting

    By Dr. Dolly Berthelot

    ย America has become a volatile place to have meaningful conversation. Perhaps the whole world has. Is it possible to address controversial issues together without rancor? We lose that ability at our peril.
    Whether online or in person, across the dinner table or the board table or the oceans, among individuals or religions or organizations or politicians or nations, poor potential outcomes of escalating conflict include chaos, hostility, enmityโ€”at worst, even violence. Any of these can mean waste, loss, calamity or catastrophe for those involved as well as for those who try to avoid the controversy. At the very least, when discussion disintegrates into disrespect and then disgust, nobody wins. Nobody grows. Nobody learns anything. Nobody moves forward.
    So what can you and I and every single person of good will do about this?
    First, we must understand that nothing gets accomplished by two people or two groups without the INTENTION of accomplishing something together. Even if that goal is simply mutual understanding. Simply? Ha! Thatโ€™s often a challenge for all of us.
    Whatever the collective goal, it must be accomplished in cooperation with one another, not in competition with one another, particularly not in hostile competition, which is the most destructive.
    One of my favorite traditional proverbs is the Chinese saying, โ€œWe see the world, not as it is, but as we are.โ€
    And we see every topic from where we โ€œcome from.โ€ That may include our age, ethnicity, race, gender, sexuality, heritage, geography, political party, faith, philosophy, education, profession or work, friends and family, income, natural proclivities, etc. All these and more shape the perspective we bring to any discussion. Sometimes they can blind us to objective reality.
    darcy-chambre (perspective)Our perspective affects our perceptions. Think of two people in a room, X standing on the northwest corner, Y sitting in the southeast corner. Things happen in various parts of that room. X and Y will naturally see (or not see) whatever happens in that same room quite differently. They will literally see (and miss) different things. They will certainly interpret what they see (and miss) quite differently. Even if both have their eyes wide open and neither are blind.
    By sharing their varying perspectives, BOTH persons in that room can enhance visibility and thus foster mutual understanding. But each must carefully attend to how the other person sees things. If each calmly explains what he or she witnesses or experiences, rather than screams that that view is the ONLY logical or rational or good or worthwhile view, or calls the opposite perspective foolish or stupid or evil, and if each person listens carefully and open-mindedly to the other, everyone will benefit. Everyone stands to gain a more 360ยฐ perspective. Certainly the often complex and confusing reality will become clearer.
    So, to achieve more productive dialogue, consider the following brief guidelines:

    DO

    1. Intend to accomplish genuine dialogue, mutual understanding.
    2. Respect those with whom you disagree. Respect is not agreement.
    3. Assume they may see, know, experience something you havenโ€™t.
    4. Share your perspective and your perception calmly and kindly.
    5. Listen to opposing perspectives expectantly and open-mindedly.
    6. Appreciate the opportunity to share, listen, learn, grow.
    7. Reward the sharing of others by your behaviors and your gratitude.

    DO NOT

    1. Presume the worst about those with whom you differ.
    2. Ridicule or insultโ€”overtly or in your mind.
    3. Overgeneralize. Acknowledge but control your biases.
    4. Let your prejudices and preferences rule your better judgment.
    5. Fear that truly hearing another person is harmful to you.

  • The Church of Every Place, pt. 2

    by Darren M. McClellan

    CoverAnd now, for a continuation on a previous post regarding a theology of mission. Specifically, I invite you to reconsider the stereotypical notion of the church as a โ€œplace.โ€ I get it, you say. The church is not a building, the church is not a steepleโ€ฆthe church is the people. Hand motions are optional.
    Most of us get the idea, but reality is another matter. What is the consequence of failing to execute the practice of church and settling for the mere existence of place?
    In his work The Missional Church: A Sending of the Church in North America, Darrell Guder explains that

    This perception of the church gives little attention to the church as a communal entity or presence, and it stresses even less the communityโ€™s role as the bearer of missional responsibility throughout the world, both near and far away. โ€˜Churchโ€™ is conceived in this view as the place where a Christianized civilization gathers for worship, and the place where the Christian character of a society is cultivated. Increasingly, this view of the church as โ€˜a place where certain things happenโ€™ located the churchโ€™s self-identity in its organizational forms and its professional class, the clergy who perform the churchโ€™s authoritative activities. Popular grammar captures it well: you โ€˜go to churchโ€™ much the same way that you might got to the store. You โ€˜attendโ€™ a church, the way you attend a school or theater. You โ€˜belong to a churchโ€™ as you would a service club with its programs and activities. (p. 80)

    It should be noted that the missionary movement of the nineteenth century did little to alter the western churchesโ€™ self-conception that the church was primarily a place. As David Bosch went on to say, it was not until the twentieth century that this self-perception gave way to a new understanding of the church as a body of people sent on a mission.
    Again from Guder,

    Unlike the previous notion of the church as an entity located in a facility or in an institutional organization and its activities, the church is being reconceived as a community, a gathered people, brought together by a common calling and vocation to be a sent peopleโ€ฆ.From the mid-twentieth century on, biblical and theological foundations for such a communal and missional view of the church have blossomed…A now global church recognized that the church of any place bears missional calling and responsibility for its own place as well as for distant places. The church of every place, it realized, is a mission-sending church, and the place of every church is a mission-receiving place. (p. 81, italics mine).

    I am struck by Guderโ€™s influence here, as evident in my own work Out of This World. There, I examine this missional mindset through the lenses of John Wesley and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The task, if I may borrow a line from Johnโ€™s little brother Charles, is to reassess what must be done โ€œto serve this present age, our calling to fulfill.โ€
    What would it mean for us to be the โ€œchurch of every placeโ€? What change would be necessary?
    To what degree are we both a mission-sending and mission-receiving church?

     

  • The Church of Every Place, pt. 1.

    by Darren M. McClellan

    CoverHow does one begin to define the mission of the church?
    For those with an historic commitment to โ€œone Lord, one faith, and one baptism,โ€ we might think that most Christians would respond with some consistency (something along the lines of disciple-making); but alas, much of our experience as the church would suggest otherwise. While certain qualities of the churchโ€™s mission must remain inviolate (in order to be Christian), this question must nevertheless be revisited with the coming of each generation and emerging context. The reason being, as Paul said, because we โ€œsee through the glass dimlyโ€ (1 Cor. 13:12).
    Consider, if you will, a small slice of church history which I gladly summarize from the most impressive work of Darrell Guder in Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America.
    Beginning in the 16th century, the Reformers emphasized that a church exists wherever the gospel is rightly preached, the sacraments rightly administered, and church discipline is exercised. Declared in Protestant circles as โ€œthe marks of the true church,โ€ they served as a means of identifying its essential nature and clarifying its mission. While these three โ€œmarksโ€ might sound familiar to us today, these emphases were rather profound at the time, as they not only opened the doors for new possibilities, but also represented an intentional call for the church to reconsider its vocation in the world. No longer could the centralized power of the ecclesial institution serve as the sole dispenser of religious goods and services. Mission could happen wherever!
    This is the positive side of this ecclesiological development. Accompanied by the arrival of the printing press, these newly conceived โ€œmarks of the churchโ€ asserted the authority of the Bible for the churchโ€™s life and proclamation as well as the importance of making that proclamation accessible to all people.ย ย  This was one of the great shifts in the history of the church toward its reclamation of a missional identity, as witnesses to the gospel of Jesus Christ who were sent in the power of the Spirit to the ends of the earth. The mobility of Pentecost was slowly being rekindled, though a prevailing thought remained: the church exists whereverโ€ฆ.
    As with any definition, there are limitations. Notice the implicit emphasis on place. Despite the considerable merit of the active criteria, a peculiar consequence did arise. Recognized in a series of lectures given in 1991, mission theologian David Bosch observed that the churches shaped by the Reformation came to conceive the church as โ€œa place where certain things happen.โ€ This stagnate image was never the intention of the Reformers, but it happened. The refrain was never stated in any formal creed, but eventually became so ingrained in the practices of the church that it eventually became a presumed characteristic of the churchโ€™s self-understanding.
    The influence of such thought with respect to the praxis of Christian mission is not hard for us to imagine. It has taken the church, in general, years to recognize the importance of witness and outreach beyond its literal walls. Many are still waiting for the world to come to them. In this case they are effectively waiting for death. As the formative itinerary of Jesus suggests, there is a time and place for the temple, but the great commission calls us to go to the ends of the earth. What good is resurrection if it stays in the tomb? In order for proclamation to do its work it must move beyond the boundaries of the cave. It is impossible to follow Jesus very long when cemented in the pew!
    Regrettably, some churches never grab hold of this gospel imperative to โ€œgoโ€ and end up closing in on themselves. If that is the extent of their witness, then perhaps they should. โ€œFollow meโ€ said Jesus, โ€œand let the dead bury their own deadโ€ (Mt 8:22).

     

  • The Witness of Running with the Wild

    by Darren M. McClellan

    CoverSome years ago, a man confessed to his pastor an occurrence in which his good intentions had gone awry.
    This was his story: believing it was time for him to โ€˜step upโ€™ his efforts as the spiritual leader of his household, the man decided to rededicate himself to the discipline of a standard devotional time.ย ย  Ignoring, however, Jesusโ€™ admonition to not make a spectacle of oneself in the interest of piety, the husband and father placed himself prominently in the big chair in the middle of the living room at an hour that was sure to warrant recognition from the rest of his family. How appropriate to let his light shine, he thought to himself.
    Much to his dismay, no one seemed to notice on the first day of his new routine. Hoping for better results on day two, he brought additional commentaries and such and spread them across the coffee table. Previously convinced that his energetic children would cease their frivolous activities and be mysteriously drawn to sit at his feet, he was perturbed to watch them run and play, zooming past him time and again with no regard for his individual sanctity (or sanity). To make matters worse, his ungrateful children insisted on behaving likeโ€”well, children–which means that they were also loud and inconsiderate of the distraction they had become.
    Clearly, his self-made sanctuary had made no impact whatsoever, other than contributing to his own disease. Those he had sought to impress continued their path of revelry, undaunted.ย ย  Finally, with a fleeting breath of self-determination, the man slammed his Bible down on the table and shouted to his wife upstairs โ€œHoney, will you get these kids out of my space? Canโ€™t you see? Iโ€™m trying to do my damned devotional!โ€
    Itโ€™s been nearly a decade since I had the privilege of being that manโ€™s pastor, but his story stays with me. In the context of confession, my friendโ€™s transparency not only reveals the delicacy of Christian witness, but also leads me to reevaluate the methods and motives of the church in our attempts as salt and light. For instance, how many times has the church been shocked to discover that the community which surrounds them is not naturally inclined to stop and see whatโ€™s going on with the most stationary figure in the room?
    I once had a church trustee tell me that their plan to engage more young people in worship was to trim up the azalea bushes in front of the sanctuary. Really? I donโ€™t mean to underestimate the importance of pruning, or the appeal of creation, but I had my doubts about the sufficiency of maintenance as the sole strategy for mission.
    What would have happened if the church chose to set aside its oblivious narcissism long enough to lovingly investigate the lives of those whom he was trying to reach? How can one say, hey neighbor, keep it down will you? Iโ€™m trying to work on my relationship with Jesus.
    A damned devotionalโ€ฆindeed!
    At times we are prone to forget that there are two planes that comprise the cross of Jesus Christ. One vertical. One horizontal.
    In the preface to the Hymns and Sacred Poems of 1739, John Wesley offered this critique:
    โ€œThe gospel of Christ knows of no religion, but social; no holiness but social holinessโ€ฆโ€™This commandment have we from Christ, that he who loves God, loves his brother also;โ€™ and that we manifest our love โ€˜by doing good to unto allโ€ฆespecially to them that are of the household of faith.โ€
    Fortunately, my wise friend gets it now. Children are going to run in all sorts of directions. The question is, who will get off their throne and run with them?

  • Which creation is the greater witness?

    by Herold Weiss

    Cover1Which is more important, the creation of Adam and Eve or the creation of the Risen Christ, the Last Adam? The story of the creation of Adam and Eve, the second of the stories in Genesis, is in part the story of the loss of life when access to the tree of life is blocked. As such, the story is theological, not about biology. Disobedient Adam and Eve did not lose biological life when they sinned. They lost access to the source of their life. That source transcends the biological realm, and without access to that source human life found itself floundering. The story of Adam and Eve, which much to oneโ€™s wondering is never alluded to in the rest of the Old Testament (with one exception, Job 31: 33), is the story of howย  life East of Eden became a struggle, and death at the hands of others entered the created world.
    The story of the Last Adam, on the other hand, is the story of how biological death is not really the last thing to be said about human life because of what God has done for the benefit of humanity. All the disciples of Jesus who saw his crucifixion went home thinking that what they had hoped for had been brutally negated by the power of the State that judged Jesus to be a seditious man. They were ready to go back to Galilee and try to pick up the life they had left behind when they had decided to follow Jesus. Their enthusiasm for Jesus and what he promised had been crushed by his crucifixion. That is the biological side of this story.
    According to the apostle Paul, however, what God did on Sunday was not just the resuscitation of a dead body. It was a new creation. The revelation of the Risen Christ gave the crucifixion a totally new meaning. It saw God in the picture and understood that his crucifixion put an end to the overwhelming power of sin in the lives of all humans. The Risen Christ is the Last Adam. The descendants of the first Adam come to life in bodies like that of their progenitor, bodies of flesh. Those who are united with Christ by baptism into the death that he died for all, come to life in the realm of the Spirit that raised Christ from the dead. Eventually, they will also receive spirit bodies and enjoy the life God had intended for humans to start with.
    The Risen Christ is the Adam of the new creation. This creation took place two thousand years ago and it is more real than the creation of Adam in as much as it is the creation of imperishable life, totally different from any biological life or death. Christians who are eager to affirm that God is the creator, to which creation should they give ultimate significance? Which creation should be the one that merits consistent efforts to affirm on the part of Christians?
    Neither the creation of Adam in the garden nor the creation of the Last Adam in the Spirit is subject to historical or scientific testing. All biblical authors affirm that God was directly involved as Creator. In both creations the Spirit was the active agent, but in the Bible, descriptions of the universe created by God, if given at all, do not provide a consistent picture, even as they affirm that God is the Creator. That God is the Creator is affirmed by faith. Of the two creations affirmed by the Bible, the creation of life in the Spirit is what Christianity is all about. That is the creation in which Christians live now and will live in eternity. Should not the reality of the creation of life in the realm of the Spirit, rather than the creation of life out of dust of the ground, be what Christians are constantly witnessing to before the world?

     

Energion Direct
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.