reliable toasters

He was Born at a Young Age

2012-02-01T04:46:00.000-08:00

Luke 2:36-40

So, He grew up, became strong, was filled with wisdom and the favour of God. Nearly a whole lifetime summed up in one sentence. Nothing like cutting to the chase. I suppose there wasn't much of consequence to mention. There was more than enough stuff to write about from His ministry years, that there wasn't much point adding back story.

Still, it would be nice to know. There must have been something interesting going on? Yes, interesting, but maybe not important. We're left with the important parts. And isn't that like God? He gives us the important bits and leaves the rest for us to work out.

The Thoughts of the Hearts of Many

2012-01-27T15:02:00.000-08:00

Luke 2:25-35

The thing that jumps out about me is the part of the prophecy that says, "as a result of him [Jesus], the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed".

I look at it in a few ways.

Jesus, His teachings and His example, don't leave a lot of wiggle room. He lays it out for us. Are we going to love our neighbours? Are we going to help the widows and the orphans? Go the extra mile? When faced with all of this, the thoughts of our hearts are exposed by our actions.

Thinking of repentance, the hearts of many have been poured out and set free from sin and shame and guilt. These hearts have been made new with forgiveness and love and freedom.

On the flip side, the evil intentions of many have been laid bare, starting with the likes of Judas and the pharisees and the chief priests, etc. How many have used the name of Jesus for their own gain? How many for the oppression of others?

Jesus has the effect of bringing out what is truly inside us. The thing is, whatever is found to be inside of us, He wants us to allow him to take our hearts of stone and replace them with hearts of flesh, filled with the things we are meant to be filled with. We are equally capable of great good and great evil, and what is inside comes out eventually. It is only in Him that what we are can become what we are meant to be.

Shades of Poor

2011-12-17T04:48:00.000-08:00

Luke 2:22-24

Apparently, Jesus' family was poor, but not grindingly so. It mentions that they were to give doves or pigeons as an offering at the temple. There were other options. A lamb was necessary for those who could afford it, so Joseph and Mary couldn't. But the other option was a bit of flour, I guess for those who couldn't afford the birds. I don't know where the cut-off for these offerings was, economically speaking, or what percentage would have done the lamb or birds or wheat. But I think it would be a decent assumption that these two new parents were closer to the bottom end of the poor spectrum. They were young, they were displaced and unestablished in a new town. Possibly, then were shunned because of the whole child out of wedlock thing. I wonder if they could have gotten away with the grain offering? Anyway, I just found it interesting, because it's something I never really paid attention to before.

Parenting: You make it up as you go along

2011-12-15T04:47:00.000-08:00

Luke 2:8-21

It must have been quite surreal to be those shepherds in the field. Angels and lights and such. But the thing that sticks out to me is Mary's response. She tucks it away into her mind, trying to make sense of it all. She already had an angel visit her, and her fiance. Oh, and her cousin. And now these wild and crazy shepherds are telling about their experience. Maybe she was going to expect it to always be like that... Probably not.

But she seems like she was doing her best to make sense of the whole thing. And I imagine she wondered at what her role would be. It was all fine and dandy to give birth to the saviour of the world, but how was she to raise him? She had many years ahead of her, teaching, loving, guiding. I find it difficult enough to be a parent, let alone having to carry that burden. I wonder how she handled it all.

No Room at the Inn

2011-12-13T14:12:00.000-08:00

Luke 2:1-7

I haven't lived in my home town for close to 15 years now. When we go back there, we stay with my mom. She's got a big place to herself. My brother lives there now, and I'm sure he'd let us sleep in the basement or something if we needed to. I still have an assortment of friends there that would put us up in a pinch, even though I don't see them very often. In my hometown, I wouldn't be in any danger of having to stay in a stable. Two of my kids were born somewhere different than we live now. They'd probably have a bit of a tougher time finding a spot in the place where they were born. But I'm sure they could rustle up something.

The text doesn't really say that Joseph was from Bethlehem here, just that he was from the line of David. But he surely must have had some sort of relatives there. And in a culture that prides itself on its hospitality, could he and his pregnant wife not find a spot more agreeable than a stable? I think if you read between the lines, it wasn't that there wasn't any room at all... there wasn't any room for them. The disgraceful couple who weren't married, but were pregnant. That's the sort of thing that would get you into the proverbial doghouse, or in this case the donkey/sheep house.

We look back and think how fortunate they had any place to stay at all. We put up little creches with ceramic characters to commemorate the occasion. But, just as the cross was a symbol of shame turned into a symbol of victory by Jesus, so too is the manger he was laid in a symbol of shame, that has become a symbol of joy because of His birth.

Relatives

2011-12-12T14:22:00.000-08:00

Luke 1:57-80

I've known that Jesus and John were relatives, but I've never really thought about it. I don't think they lived very close together. Mary went to live with Elizabeth in a town in the hill country of Judea for three months before either boy was born. They must have been somewhat close, even good friends. I don't know any of my cousins very well. Even the ones that lived close to me. My wife knows hers better, but her family in general is better connected than mine. But I figure Mary and Elizabeth would have still seen each other through the years, meaning that their boys would have know each other, at least a little bit. What did they play together? What did they talk about? Did they find a kindred spirit in each other because of who they were, and who they knew themselves to be?

The Bible only gives us these little snapshots. They had bigger stories than just what fits on a few pages and a few lines. I wonder if Jesus went to any of John's birthday parties? And most importantly, did they discuss what they were going to be when they grew up? Those were two people who were important figures in history, and knew it from a young age.

Oh, Mary don't you weep, don't you mourn

2011-12-03T14:18:00.001-08:00

Luke 1:39-56

In bible college, we had a speaker come to a conference we held. His name escapes me, and I latter heard some unflattering things about him that may or may not have been true. But he said some things that have stuck with me. It's not often that I hear someone speak, and I can remember what they said ten years later. Maybe it's because what he said was associated with a song. I'm good with songs...

Anyway, the song went;
Oh Mary don't you weep, don't you mourn
Oh Mary don't you weep, don't you mourn
Cuz Pharaoh's army got drown-ed
Oh Mary don't you weep

Apparently, it's a spiritual, sung by black slaves in America. There are three connecting points. Pharaoh's army got drown-ed way before Mary was born. But she can rejoice, knowing that her God is faithful in defending her people. But why would slaves, almost equally distant from Mary as pharaoh was, take comfort in this as well? They were a poor, oppressed people, just like Mary's people were. And they understood something better than their masters did... or at least they experienced it in a way their masters never would. God is on the side of the oppressed, not the oppressor (now, you could make the argument that the roles were reversed for a time while Israel conquered and occupied the promised land, but you'll note that in the end, Israel was punished for it's unfaithfulness). Pharaoh was defeated. Mary's child defeated sin and death. And the slaves of the south knew God would ultimately deliver them (just ask someone like Martin Luther King).

Anyhow, my point is drawn from Mary's words in verses 46 to 53. God is the defender of the poor and oppressed. Mary will be remembered not because of the mighty and powerful works that she performed in her lifetime, like Kings and Caesars were. Mary says, "He has seen the humble state of His servant and all generations will call me blessed because He has done great things for me". That's how it is with God. The least are the greatest, and the greatest are the least. Perhaps, as we sit in our comfy church seats we would do well to ponder which end of the spectrum we are at.

Greetings Favoured One

2011-09-25T09:40:00.000-07:00

Luke 1:26-38

I can't imagine an angel coming and talking to me. Although, at least in Mary's case, I wonder what sort of form the angel had. The text doesn't record her being afraid of the angel, just at being puzzled by what it said to her. So perhaps it just looked like a person? So, if some person came up and said, "Greetings favoured one, the Lord is with you", you would probably look at them a little bit sideways. But what a great greeting it was. I think there's a bit of a fear of what God would say to us if He sent a message to us personally. But here, at the beginning of this new chapter in the relationship between God and man, it's all good news.

I think of the two times in my own life when someone has had a word from God for me. Both times were encouragements about situations the messenger couldn't possibly have known about. They weren't world changing moments like Mary had, but for me they are important markers to look back on my own relationship with God. There's no record of any other moments where Mary has a remarkable encounter like this, but I imagine she would often think back to that moment throughout the rest of her life.

Did they have WCB back then?

2011-09-15T14:47:00.000-07:00

Luke 1:18-25

So Zechariah had this vision of an angel telling him he's going to have a baby. He responds in disbelief, because he and his wife are too old... yes too old to being the child bearing. So, the angel makes him mute. Strange thing to have happen, really. Why mute? Why not... boils... or lame? I think in the same situation, Sarah had nothing happen to her when she laughed at the messenger, and then lied about it. Anyway, he's mute, and can't tell the others what just happened to him, although they can tell something is up. Oh, and the most interesting part is that he stuck around until his shift was over at the temple. I think maybe they could have let him get off earlier. At least there weren't any WCB forms to fill out.

It's pretty cool when God answers someone's prayer. Just think of how many years Elizabeth would have prayed for a child, apparently to no avail. Then, when she is old, and past the time of even having a chance to have a child, so is blessed with a pregnancy. Just imagine the overwhelming sense of joy that she would have had. It seems sometimes like God doesn't answer our prayers, but I think He always does. Just not always have we expect or when we expect.

The Hearts of the Fathers

2011-09-06T13:19:00.000-07:00

Luke 1:5-17

I was reading this bit here, and one thing stuck out to me. In verse 17, the angel mentions that John will, among other things, "turn the hearts of the fathers back to their children". It's an interesting thing to say in this context. There's stuff about turning people back to the Lord, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, but why the fathers to their children?

I think it points to the importance of fathers. Both mothers and fathers are important to their children. I can see it in my own children. I know how important their mother is. She is home with them all day, is teaching them and shaping them. Fathers are sometimes looked upon as "the provider" in our culture, although perhaps less so than before. But being a father is more than making some money and teaching your kids to throw a football. I see everyday how much of an influence I have on my kids, for the good and the bad.

The Bible has lots of fathers in them, and most of them aren't very good. There is a lot of family strife in the Old Testament. History is littered with delinquent dads and the damage they have done to their children. I don't think that those who follow Jesus have a monopoly on being good fathers, but I know that in my own life, my faith is an integral part of how I relate to my kids. They have been entrusted to me by God, and not only do I love them immensely, but I feel the intense responsibility of raising them right.

I wonder sometimes what the world would be like had the world wars not happened. So many fathers were killed, leaving children without that important influence. I think the rebellion of the 1960's is directly related to that loss, and the fatherless (both actually and metaphorically) children of that generation had a profound impact on their own children and so on down the line. When I lived in Paraguay, I saw the effects of the war (over a hundred years prior) that had wiped out somewhere like 50-75% of the men from that country. The men there were stereotyped as big children with no sense of responsibility.

Anyhow, to all of you fathers out there, make sure you love your children and model and teach them the way they should go.

Further Thoughts

2011-08-28T15:20:00.000-07:00

I have some further thoughts related to my previous post. I was surfing around the internet (why is it 'surf'?) yesterday when I came across an interview with Micheal Behe's son, Leo. Micheal Behe is a Roman Catholic Intelligent Design proponent. In the interview, Leo states that growing up he was involved in church, attended mass, etc. etc. He debated with people about God and such. Then he read Dawkins' The God Delusion, and he basically did a complete turn around in the space of a few months and is now an ardent atheist. It's not so important who Leo is, or that he read that particular book, those are just the facts of the story (uninteresting people don't get interviewed). What I found so interesting was his reason for the turn around. He said that he had never really thought about 'the fallible origin of scripture' before and it complete shook his faith.

So what I'd like to say is, "So What?" Why is the fallibility of scripture such a devastating thing for this guy? I don't know off hand, but I have an idea. I think in general, Christians (and I would wager especially strong Catholics) have come to hold the bible as infallible, meaning without any mistakes. In some cases, the idea is that the bible is completely perfect, transmitted word for word from God's mouth to your ears. Perfect.

But what happens when we realize that it is a collected work, produced over a huge time span by different people in different places, edited by others, compiled by still others... At some point, more people decided what got to be included in the bible, and what didn't. If you look at the variation in the manuscripts that we have, it isn't immense, but it is there. And then it gets translated into a different language (say English), with different understandings of how the world works and in some cases no real way to say exactly what you are trying to say (lost in translation).

Before you get upset at me, I'm not trying to say the bible isn't trustworthy, just don't think it is in the way we are popularly lead to believe. Someone can point out a few discrepancies in the Bible, and thereby shake the foundations of someone's faith, because that faith is built upon the idea that the Bible is this perfect thing. The Bible is trustworthy, but only in as much as anything else is. Let me explain.

Most of the knowledge we have comes second hand. Everything I've ever learned about India, I've learned from the accounts of other people. I don't expect their accounts to be perfect, but that doesn't mean I can't trust it. Why should we automatically stop trusting the Bible if it wasn't magically delivered to us on a silver platter? If the foundation of one's faith is built upon that idea of perfection, then it becomes easy to topple that over by poking a few holes in it. It doesn't have to be perfect in order to be trustworthy.

Anyway, I hope that makes some sense. I love the Bible, and I trust it, but I don't expect anything of that it isn't.

By Popular Demand

2011-08-27T11:31:00.000-07:00

It's unanimous. 100% of you said Luke, so here goes

Luke 1:1-4

I've always felt like the fact that the gospels were written years after the events actually happened wasn't really a big deal. That doesn't mean the material didn't exist. People probably had some stuff written down, the important stuff at least. There were enough people around who were witnesses that the collective memory kept things alive, too. It wasn't like these were tales that people pulled out once in a while. They devoted their lives to telling and re-telling them. I'm sure they were coloured a bit over time, but the essence remained the same.

Much is sometimes made of the similarity between the Matthew, Mark and Luke (and difference with John). But I think it adds credibility. They used those existing resources that were available to them. They weren't writing new stories, they were editing and compiling what already existed. The original material isn't available to us now, but it doesn't need to be. You don't need to see the scrap notes and rough drafts of my songs or stories in order to appreciate them or know what I'm trying to say.

I think Luke's intro is telling. Others had tried to summarize things, but Luke felt like it wasn't up to snuff. So, he took it upon himself to put an account together, one carefully. Well, let's see how well he lived up to that goal.

What Next?

2011-08-03T01:23:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure anyone actually reads this blog, and if they do, if they care enough to comment, but I'm wondering what book I should go through next. I'm thinking an epistle, although Luke is the only gospel I haven't gone through on here. Anywho... I'll move on to the next one sometime soon.

Bumbling and Believing

2011-08-02T01:18:00.000-07:00

Matthew 28:11-20

The leaders come across as sort of bumbling their way through all of this. Perhaps it was a little more trouble for them than they initially thought. How hard could it be to have someone killed? But now that Jesus was dead, and laid in a tomb, it wasn't over. The guards come back and relay the message of what happened at Jesus' resurrection. So, the leaders have to figure out what to do with all of this. It must have been quite the headache. But the guards were duly paid off and assured, so life could go on. Although I wonder if the leaders were looking over their shoulders, expecting Jesus to show up any moment and ruin everything.

At the end, when Jesus appears to His disciples, it says, "When they saw Him, they worshiped Him, but some doubted." Of course I know this, but it strikes me as I read it that some would doubt in that instance. There He was, right in front of them, but still, that wasn't enough for some people. For all of those who make excuses we they don't want to believe, I guess they are in good company, because even some of these disciples, seeing Jesus, still did not want to believe, or just couldn't get past whatever was keeping them from believing. I suppose no amount of evidence will be enough for some people.

Cartoon Headless Chickens

2011-07-30T08:19:00.000-07:00

Matthew 28:1-10

What strikes me most about this account of the resurrection is the chaos surrounding it. It's not a sedate account of what happened. There's angels, earthquakes, the terrified guards, the women running to tell the other disciples, and then Jesus shows up in the middle of it. I can imagine the people involved running around like cartoon headless chickens. It gives me the impression of being a wild and unsettled episode, which it was. Whether all of those events happened in that sort of order and such, I don't know. The other gospels vary a little bit on how the story goes, but I like this version because of the feeling it communicates. It's filled with excitement and chaos and people who don't know what to do with themselves, just like I imagine it really would have happened.

Complex Webs of Complex People

2011-07-29T17:48:00.000-07:00

Matthew 27:57-66

Why didn't the Pharisees ask for the body of Jesus? They had plenty of time during the spectacle to ask Pilate to give them the body once He was dead. Did it not occur to them? Certainly, after Jesus had been placed in the tomb, they thought about making sure that nothing funny happened with His body. I'm no expert, but perhaps they usually left the bodies up for a while. But in John, the leaders specifically ask to have the bodies taken down because of the Sabbath. If they had asked for that, why not ask for the body as well?

Joseph cared about Jesus. His concern for his friend (I think they must have been) led him to think of what to do with His body. Joseph is an interesting guy. A member of the council (though he didn't go along with their plans), a secret disciple (because he was afraid of the council still), and a faithful man waiting for the kingdom. You can bet he got into some trouble from the rest of the council for what he did. Or perhaps he was able to spin it so that it didn't seem out of place. He was a member of the council, and although not acting on their behalf, they at least knew where He was going to be buried and were able to set some guards up. It's an interesting time for Joseph to step forward, though. He was a secret disciple, but now that Jesus was dead, he was outing himself. Perhaps he had a real deep faith and understanding of what Jesus' death meant. Or not. It's an interesting episode for the complex relationships it involves.

Zombie Apocalypse?

2011-07-24T01:56:00.000-07:00

Matthew 27:45-56

I've always wondered what happened to those people who came up out of their tombs in this passage. They were dead, but now, being alive, that would throw things off. Did they go home? How long did they live for this time? That short statements stirs up so many questions that don't get answered.

One other thing I wonder about is if we sometimes make things more... complicated than they need to be. What I mean is that in this passage, Jesus calls out, "My God, my God. Why have you forsaken me?" I've heard all sorts of debate about the whys and the hows of Jesus being forsaken. But it's usually not stuff that's arrived at from the text itself. I've always thought it was just Jesus drawing the people's attention to that particular Psalm that he quotes, in order that they might realize what was going on. There may have been more to it than that, but that part of it makes the most sense to me. We're so quick to... over-spiritualize things that the easy answer sometimes just doesn't seem good enough.

Jumping on the Bandwagon

2011-07-21T09:57:00.001-07:00

Matthew 27:32-44

You can always count on the crowd to react predictably. Take the Vancouver riots. I kept telling people that place would explode if they lost the Stanley Cup. And it did. But I don't think for the reasons I initially thought it would. Sure, there was a lot of pent up emotion that boiled over and helped things out, but it seems like there were some people intent on making trouble from the beginning, and they knew that the crowd would join them. I'm sure those people won't be caught, and the people that joined in along the way will take the fall.

During Jesus' crucifixion, the crowds joined in. "Save yourself!" "We'll believe in you if you come down from the cross." Even the robbers, being crucified with Him, sling their insults. How did Jesus end up at the point where He was so humiliated as this? The ones in power were intent on making trouble, and the crowd reacted predictably.

At the church I used to work at, the first pastor I worked with was fired in this way. Certain "leaders" were intent on getting rid of him, and whether they (actually we) realized it, we acted predictably and aided in his dismissal. Not long after, the same thing happened to me. It only takes a few people to make a big mess, unless we make a conscious effort to stop, think and not follow the crowd in doing evil. I know the crucifixion of Jesus was necessary, and as horrible as it was for Him, I appreciate what He did, but how much differently might things have gone if some people had stood up against the whole thing. I don't think God "forced" those involved to crucify Jesus... none of them were puppets. I do think they reacted predictably, just as He knew they would.

cringe

2011-07-20T17:39:00.000-07:00

Matthew 27:24-31

I remember watching The Passion of the Christ. The flogging and the crown of thorns were hard to watch. Inhuman, we might say, but that would be wrong. We are the only ones who do such things. Mock and torture, and think up these horrible, humiliating ways to make ourselves feel superior at the expense of others.

I have to step back for a second. Sometimes, I'm a bit of a whiner. I whine to God about this or that hardship... oh, my sewer backed up... wha, the van needs fixing...

He endured much more suffering, real suffering. What I go through doesn't even count, but yet, I whine.
I desire to live a more Christ-like life, to be faithful and trust Him, then I get all bent out of shape by something stupid.

Have patience with me, Lord. Change my heart.

Oops.

2011-07-03T13:43:00.000-07:00

Matthew 27:11-23

It's interesting that the fact that Jesus didn't defend himself amazed Pilate. Someone in that situation, especially being innocent, should be grovelling and pleading and explaining and defending like mad. It must have confused Pilate. Was he innocent or not? He didn't act like either.

His way out was the release of the prisoner. Of course the people would choose Jesus over Barabbas. Oops.

It's all an odd encounter, but smacks of the truth. The powerful are all too often able to ram through things that seem quite absurd. And through all of it, it would appear that Jesus merely keeps his cool an awaits what has been set out for Him.

What to make of him?

2011-06-27T03:38:00.000-07:00

Matthew 27:1-10

Judas is one of those characters whom I don't know what to do with. Am I supposed to hate him for turning in Jesus? Am I supposed to feel for him when he realizes what he's done? Am I supposed to weep for him when he kills himself?
The fact that he goes so far as to commit suicide over this whole episode seems to me to show that he really didn't intend for things to turn out this way. I think he was trying to force Jesus' hand, so that He would rise up and fulfill His destiny as deliverer of His people. But when Judas realized that wasn't going to happen, he also realized that He just killed his friend and destroyed something special. Judas wasn't completely evil.

The chief priests and elders... well that's a different story. When Judas tries to return the money because it is blood money, they say, "so what". They know it, and they don't care. They have their own interests to look after, which is exactly what they just did. Not that Judas deserves a medal or something, but at least he saw the error of his ways, which is more than can be said for the priests and elders.

Celebrity has its ups and downs

2011-06-03T13:43:00.000-07:00

Matthew 26:69-75

As I read this passage, I get the feeling that the disciples were a little bit like celebrities in that neighbourhood. Several, seemingly unrelated people pick Peter out of the crowd and identify him as one of Jesus' followers. They maybe did not know his name or anything, but they certainly recognized him. I'm sure all of the disciples enjoyed that notoriety when it was a positive, but here Peter vows with all of his being that he doesn't know Jesus. How quickly everything turns in these sorts of situations.

I think this whole episode helped to weed out the followers from the disciples. The followers probably left at this point, and the disciples, like Peter, learned some hard lessons that they would need in order to found the church that Jesus was about to establish.

2011-05-18T20:17:00.000-07:00

Matthew 26:57-68

People do things in the heat of the moment that they regret. I do that all the time. I have a number of regrets that hang over me that resulted form hasty comments or decisions. I wouldn't say that they weigh on me, but they have stuck with me, and there is a twinge of regret when they are randomly called to memory.

I'll set the scene for one of those regrets. High school assembly. The announcement comes that our band teacher will be moving on. I was in the band, and I actually didn't have any problem with our teacher. He was a little odd, but then again, so am I, so that means nothing. And looking back, he probably wasn't really that odd. It's high school students that are odd. But anyways, this teacher was made fun of by most students, and I fell in line with that. So when his leaving was announced, in an instant I thought it would get some laughs if I was to cheer really loud, one of my classic, loud cheers. The instant I did it, I somehow knew I would regret it for a long time... especially when no one laughed. Sorry, Mr. Cotton. You were a good music teacher. I just wasn't a very good student.

In verse 67-68, I wonder if we witness something of the same. In every situation, there are hangers-on looking for affirmation from the crowd.

"And some slapped Him, saying, 'Prophesy for us, you Christ! Who hit you?'"

Could it be that these were some of those insecure people, like me, looking for some sort of laughs from the crowd? Did they regret it later on, after they saw Him crucified? In hindsight, did it really make sense to treat Him so harshly?

These characters aren't important in the history of the world, but most of us fall in to that category. The narrative is about Jesus, and what happens to Him. But they are a part of the story, and in that brief instant, when their lives brushed up against his, they made a snap decision that has been read and retold to billions of people over the course of two thousand years. I don't think that's how I would want to be remembered.

Betrayal

2011-05-06T15:31:00.000-07:00

Matthew 26:47-56

I've always wondered about Judas. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, even when rationally I know they don't deserve it. Thus, with Judas, I look for the motive that would make him turn in his friend and master. I hope to find something that paints a better picture of him, even though there are passages that paint a sinister picture of him being a liar and and thief. I've always been partial to the thought that he was taking things into his own hands and trying to force Jesus' hand.

A very large band of people came to arrest Jesus on that dark, difficult night. They obviously figured there would be some trouble. I think everyone, except Jesus, felt that way. Judas maybe thought that if Jesus wasn't going to go looking for trouble, he'd bring it to Him. Peter had his sword ready, and chopped off someone's ear. The glorious revolution had begun!

But Jesus was having none of that. Both Judas and Peter were to be denied. Jesus handed Himself over... just like that. Not that people really knew what they were looking for from all of this; but it certainly wasn't what actually transpired.

Judas probably had mixed reasons for what he did. Partly the money, partly the "revolution", partly some other host of reasons, but ultimately for himself, I believe.

That's the biggest betrayal of Jesus. Acting on our own behalf when we think it's in His best interests. How many atrocities have been committed in this way?

Suffering and Sleeping

2011-05-02T10:51:00.000-07:00

Matthew 26:36-46

Jesus really didn't want to go through with what was ahead of Him. Can you blame Him? He knew very well what the significance of it all was, but that didn't make it any more pleasant or bearable. I think of child birth. Having watched my wife go through it several times now, the last ones without any drugs to aid in the pain, I'm amazed she still considers the possibility of going through it all again. But she does. The final result is awesome, as you have a new little one, but that doesn't make what she has to go through any easier while she is going through it. Or even before she does, as I can see that sense of dread start to settle into her. But she still goes through with it (not that she has much choice at that point!)

Jesus knew what was coming, and how... unpleasant it would be. He didn't want to go through with it, but He knew He had to, and He did. I like the humanness that this passage gives to Jesus. He's very relate-able through it.

As for the disciples, I think it's hard to relate with someone else's pain at the best of times. But they were in a situation they didn't fully grasp. They didn't realize what was coming, but they still could have comforted their friend in this obviously trying time. Maybe men didn't really do such things in that time and place? I don't think anything lets them off the hook, but it keeps with their character. I fall asleep praying. Not saying it's good, just that it happens. I probably would have, too. I wonder if that was pretty frustrating for Jesus? The whole affair must have been really, but we'll get to that soon.

A Moment of Decision and a Lifetime of Regret

2011-04-27T08:23:00.000-07:00

Matthew 26:31-35

I've been there. I can vividly remember sitting in the hall of my high school. My friends were walking by, yet when the bully I was sitting with started to mock them, I did so as well. That moment of self preservation still lingers in my mind. Friends whom I had grown apart from, but nonetheless didn't deserve that treatment at my hand. It's not like the bully was my friend or anything, it was just a moment of decision where I chose wrong. I don't think that my friends ever heard the conversation, and that bully is long since dead (killed in jail, I believe). But I remember, and it's one of a handful of split decisions that haunt me to this day.

Think of Peter. All full of gumption and ready to "die with you", he tells Jesus. But his vision of what was going down didn't pan out with reality. Instead of a glorious battle, there was humiliating surrender. Jesus wasn't leading them into victory, he was being lead to the slaughter, and the sheep had scattered. And in a moment of decision, in a larger moment of confusion, Peter denied his friend and master. I'll bet that scene haunted him the rest of his life. My choice has left its mark, but I think Peter's might have in some way come to greatly influence the rest of his life (although I would stop short of saying that it defined him).

It's difficult to know "how" Jesus informed Peter of his coming denial. There is no body language or tone of voice recorded, but I like to think that Jesus had a forgiving tone. He knew what was going to happen, but He didn't hold it against Peter. By letting him know what was going to happen, I think it made it all the more raw for Peter when it did, but perhaps there was also some comfort in remembering how Jesus confronted him about it.

Bread and Wine

2011-04-18T16:00:00.000-07:00

Matthew 26:26-30

We went through the Passover Seder this weekend. A mini version at a brunch on Sunday, and then some of the symbolism of it at church. I think what struck me was how it informed the way I understand what Jesus was getting at. Because the items He was referring to were loaded with so much symbolism, I don't think it was just the items themselves that He was talking about. The bread was a certain bread, which had a foreshadowing element of Christ and His death and resurrection. It wasn't just any old "bread" that was His body, but that particular bread, the one that now would make sense in light of what was going to happen to Jesus. It wasn't any old cup of wine that is symbolic of Jesus' blood, but that particular cup.

It makes more sense to me. It's like if I were to give something meaningful to my wife that was only meaningful because of what it meant to us. To anyone else, it just wouldn't mean anything, or at least nothing near what it would mean to her. And so it's the same here. Bread and wine aren't really that meaningful, but that particular bread and that particular cup were meaningful, and those are the ones Jesus is referring to. I wouldn't do a good job with all of the details of the seder, so if you're interested, you're better off looking into it yourself.

Cups of Cold Water

2011-04-15T03:56:00.000-07:00

Matthew 25:31-46

I don't worry too much about sin these days. I used to feel really guilty about stuff when I was younger, and I still do at times, but just not as much. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe I don't sin so much anymore (doubt it) or maybe I'm come to realize that I'm forgiven and I don't need to sweat over it excessively. What I sweat over nowadays isn't my personal righteousness, it's what I do and don't do for others.

In this parable of Jesus, he talks about the sheep and the goats being divided along the lines of those who did, and those who didn't. Those who blessed others were rewarded, those who didn't, weren't. It wasn't about who sinned and who didn't. It was about who was a blessing and who wasn't.

Why I sweat over this is because I don't do anything. I don't serve the poor, visit prisoners, etc., etc. I don't do anything but work (at work and at home) and spend time with my family. Those are good and important things, but where is the space for giving cups of cold water? Or the motivation. I don't want my life to be wasted on me and mine, if what Jesus has called us to is a life for them and theirs. Above anything else, my lack of blessing others is what makes me feel unworthy and ashamed.

Just Do Someting

2011-03-30T07:44:00.000-07:00

Matthew 25:14-30

The thing I notice about this story is that the master seemingly was happy with whatever the slaves did, as long as they did something. The first two slaves doubled what they were given, and the last slave does nothing with his. The master says that if he at least would have put it in the bank, then he would have earned some interest on it. That's really not much to ask. At least it's something.

I was listening to a sermon the other day about Ecclesiastes, and part of it was about the "folding of hands"; in other words "checking out" and not doing anything. That concept makes me think of what this third slave has done. He "checked out" and didn't bother to do anything with what was given to him. In the bigger picture, I think this parable isn't just about salvation, but about life in general. God gives each of us a life, with each our own strengths, abilities and weaknesses. We should at least do something with it, even if it's not something spectacular.

The Ten Virgins

2011-03-21T15:17:00.000-07:00

Matthew 25:1-13

I like reading commentaries on passages like this one. There are some things in it that don't really make sense, and sometimes reading other people's more informed takes on it is helpful. But still, why couldn't they have just shared the lamps? Or why wouldn't they let them in once they showed up? Etc. Etc.

What you get from most of the commentaries that I looked at involves something to do with tribulation, millenialism (of one kid or another), or some sort of explanation of all the details with regards to someone's chosen eschatology.

But what if the point is just simple. The foolish virgins should have known better (that's implied). It's a wedding. At least nowadays, everything is planned out to the hilt. I imagine brides have always been worried about their weddings, but that's an assumption. Anyway, when you know you're supposed to be prepared, then be prepared. That's it.

We know that we are supposed to be prepared. It matters little how everything will pan out in the end. Or when. What matters is that we are prepared. So, just be prepared already.

Awaiting the Master

2011-03-15T15:19:00.000-07:00

Matthew 24

I've never really been one for end times stuff. Somehow, it just doesn't interest me. It doesn't seem... practical? Trying to decipher what the "signs of the times" and all that mean just seems a bit like a waste of time.
In one sense, I think it isn't practical for us, because we don't live in the situations that the disciples lived in. Jesus was referring to things that were going to happen within the lifetime of those hearing it; the destruction of Jerusalem and the nation as a whole really. There are farther reaching things to take from it, but it addressed the immediate concerns of those particular people (which I don't share). Just like in the Old Testament. The prophets are referring to things that were relevant to their own day, although those things again had bigger implications. I don't live in those times, so those things don't seem so important to me.

The other thing is that I don't think one needs to know when the end is coming to be prepared for it. Jesus tells his listeners to be alert; pay attention. He talks of a slave who acted as though his master wasn't coming back. Never mind the fact that he probably wasn't a good slave to begin with, based on how he acted. But possibly, in that story we see that it shouldn't matter when the master is returning. We should be good slaves anyway.

Let's Agree to Disagree. Please...

2011-03-14T11:16:00.000-07:00

Matthew 23:37-39

There is nothing quite like the defense of a dogma. No one is immune to it, at some level at least. It often descends into chaos as sides fire their guns at each other. Jesus was bringing a new idea, or rather He was clarifying the old ideas, yet, Jerusalem always killed her prophets, and He was no different.

Why can't we just listen and agree to disagree? Except where they attach me personally, I have no problem with people who hold other ideas. I don't agree, I don't have to. But I feel solid enough in what I know and believe not to feel threatened by someone else's opinions. Too much time is spent not listening to each other, or worse.

Whoa, woes.

2011-03-09T22:29:00.000-08:00

Matthew 23:13-36

I just picture Jesus being so upset during these things He is saying. The level of frustration is palpable. The worst things Jesus ever has to say to anyone, He says to the religious leaders. Yet, we never seem to learn our lesson. Woe to you who tell people not to do this and that, whether it's what you drink, what you listen to, what you wear, etc. We've always been much more concerned about those sorts of things than the more important aspects of the law - justice, mercy, faithfulness.

I can just imagine what Jesus would be saying to us today. Oh, $20 million for a new building? slap! Vitriolic blogs and tweets over theology that make us all look stupid and mean? slap! Oh, and don't get me started on all of this "worship music"... slap, slap!

Of course I'm being cynical and comedic, but the more I read about Jesus, the more I can picture him shaking his head at us, popping alka seltzer for the enormous ulcer we all must give him sometimes.

Christian Celebrities

2011-03-08T00:51:00.000-08:00

Matthew 23:1-12

I've been thinking a little bit about some of our modern Christian "celebrities". Most specifically about Rob Bell and the controversy over his new book. And about John Piper, and other big church leaders. Big churches lend themselves to celebrity, because there is one (or few) leaders, and in some cases, tens of thousands of followers. When you are a celebrity, you start to do things simply because it will get noticed. Everything you do is meant to impact others. I don't think that's bad necessarily, it just comes with the territory. These guys lead large congregations, speak at conferences and write books and such, so that all of us can be let in on what God has shown them. That's good, too. But sometimes I think it might be a bit much. John Piper tweeted something about Bell, and that was completely meant to be noticed by people. However this all shakes out, because there are "important" people that we should listen to, they are saying things they think we should listen to.

Where I'm going with all this is, wouldn't the church be better served to be small? The vast majority of us have little to no voice, because certain people get to do the speaking for us. In some cases they maybe have earned that right, and God has put them there. But in some cases they have not. It's natural for us to want to have a large sphere of influence, but when our lives become about "being seen" and "honoured", I think we'd be better off without that temptation, especially on the supersized scale we see nowadays.

I AM who I AM, but it's not what you think I AM.

2011-03-05T11:13:00.000-08:00

Matthew 22:41-46

Wouldn't things be easier if Jesus had just come out and said, "Hey everyone! I'm the Messiah!" Instead, He alludes to it, referring to Himself in veiled terms that would suggest who He was. That might have made things easier for us, but probably not for the people He was talking to. "Messiah" and its related terms were loaded with all sorts of meaning that Jesus didn't identify with. He was, in a sense, developing a new, or rather, clearer sense of what those words truly meant. Once that was done, and His work was finished, those words could truly apply to Him. But to identify with all those misconceptions about what those terms meant would not have worked out so well.

Life is Simple. Living it isn't always.

2011-03-04T07:33:00.000-08:00

Matthew 22:34-40

Life is complicated, but it is made up of simple components. Jesus' response to the Pharisees helps to simplify things a little. Love God, and love other people. What more do you need? It's the same as Micah 6:8. Simple. The working out of those things is not always simple, but there's no need to muddle things up by giving people a long list of do's and don'ts to remember.

I hope they at least have cheesecake.

2011-02-26T16:24:00.000-08:00

Matthew 22:23-33

There's nothing romantic about Jesus' description of the resurrection. No marrying? No special relationships like that? You look at Islam, and some of the martyrs get 70 virgins. You look at the Mormons, and they can live with their wives and families, and in fact can't make it to heaven without them. But Jesus puts a pin in that bubble. It may not be romantic, but it sounds realistic.

We won't be the same after the resurrection, call it heaven if you will. Our relationships will be different, and hopefully better. We may feel like we are losing out, and long for those things we know and love here. What we get will no doubt make these things look like mud pies compared to my wife's awesome cheesecake. I hope they at least have cheesecake.

God don't need your money

2011-02-24T16:20:00.000-08:00

Matthew 22:15-22

Why do churches collect money? I think in some ways we've tried to spiritualize it. God doesn't need our money. We do. That said, something that we do with our money is use it for the communal good. Like paying for all the stuff the church does. Before I go too far, let me just say that I'm not advocating for not giving to the church. I give, cheerfully, even. The way that we do "church" nowadays very much depends on it having a bunch of money to spend. Big buildings to sustain, paid staff and "ministries" to support. In some ways, I wonder how things came to be the way they are. Did the need for all this church stuff cause the church to develop a reliance on money, or did the fact that people give enable the church to do all this stuff?

I've been a "church staff", and I liked it. There is something to be said for pooling our money so some of us can devote our time the way pastors should. That's the whole idea behind missionaries. We give to them so they can be freed up to do whatever it is they end up doing wherever it is they end up doing it. But I don't think our churches and ministries need to be as financially strapping as they are.

I kinda think our churches should be smaller. More of the load should be on the lay people. I don't think God intended for the bloat of modern churches, but I'm sure He works with it. I can still do the things I did as a pastor while not actually having an official title. (I admit I wouldn't be as capable if not for that role I had for that time, but perhaps there are other ways for people to gain that experience.) Ministries are easy, but loving people is hard. Perhaps we could use our time and money better by being involved in the community. If I use my money to take an art class in order to make new relationships and hopefully help someone to know God better, is that any less using my money for God's kingdom?

Hope that wasn't too harsh, it wasn't meant to be.

I hope they have shrimp!

2011-02-23T07:27:00.000-08:00

Matthew 22:1-14

I think what strikes me about this parable is that the invited guests don't come. I think weddings were, and are, a big deal. A co-worker of mine just got back from a wedding in Mexico. Ninety people went. That's a big commitment for a wedding. But that's what happens at weddings. The invited guests, seeing as how they were the ones invited, should have been excited to go. Especially if they actually liked the person inviting them. But, in the end, they must not have cared too much. They didn't find the wedding that important, because they didn't find the person inviting them that important.

God has invited us to a relationship. Sometimes it's a rocky one, I suppose, but a relationship nonetheless. If we don't value Him, or that relationship, I can see why we wouldn't end up at the banquet. I want to be there. I hope they have shrimp!

The Parable of the Tenants

2011-02-17T09:45:00.000-08:00

Matthew 21:33-46

I wonder why the landowner thought the tenants would respect his son? They just beat and killed mostly everyone else that he had sent already. You gotta figure the same thing is going to keep happening. Why not just wipe them out early on, when you realize that the tenants are being jerks. But I suppose it is meant to show that the landowner is compassionate, not wanting to dole out harsh judgement right away. In the end, they do get thrown out. I think the moral is that even though these tenants were chosen, that didn't mean they had a free ticket to the end. It was still within the landowners power to replace them. Not arbitrarily, mind you, but certainly as a result of their insolence.

Do the Right Thang

2011-02-16T11:30:00.000-08:00

Matthew 21:28-32

It's a lot easier to "appear" to be doing all the right things than it is to actually do them. In fact, it seems that often times the people that are doing the right thing don't seem like they are doing the right thing. That's because they are actually doing the right thing instead of making it look like they are. The first son wasn't smart, because even though he changed his mind and did what he was asked, he didn't make sure his dad knew about it. The second son said he would, but didn't. When it gets done, who will the father think did it? (At least until he finds out otherwise). But God doesn't want us to look like we are doing the right thing, he just wants us to do it. Is that too much to ask?

Ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Gotcha!

2011-02-15T13:44:00.000-08:00

Matthew 21:23-27

I love this story. It's so real. The leaders are trying to back Jesus into a corner (again) and get Him to admit to where His authority comes from. Likely, they figure they know how He will answer and have all their arguments laid out. But He makes them look foolish. He asks them instead where John's baptism is from- God or man. The leaders know that either way they answer, they will answer wrong. It didn't really matter what they really thought. Which is the odd part. If they would have thought through their answer, at least they would have thought about it. Sometimes you need to think things through. But, they just dismiss it. What a shame. They aren't really interested in the truth. They just want to advance their agenda. That's how people are, I guess. Too often the truth gets lost in the details, or the argument, or whatever. Then we look all the more foolish for it, and try all the harder to defend our position. I'm sure the leaders didn't appreciate the push back from Jesus, and perhaps this humiliation dealt to them (deserved as it was) made them all the more sure of their decision to get rid of this upstart.

Name it and Claim it!?

2011-02-14T10:40:00.001-08:00

Matthew 21: 18-22

The withered fig tree is another one of those things I don't always get. It's maybe meant to be a commentary on Israel's rejection. That answers some questions, but opens up others. But it's an object lesson, and it isn't meant to be a comprehensive thing.

The part that I dwell on, however, is the end. Jesus tells us that if we ask and believe, we will receive. That's what He says. So do we take that at face value? Sometimes, probably more often than not, we ask and don't receive. What then? Is He lying?

Excuse me while I try to explain away the difficulties here. Maybe it's not so much that you will receive, but that if you don't believe, you won't receive. You aren't guaranteed anything other than if you don't ask in faith, you won't get anything. I know that's a nice little answer to calm my doubts, but it seems to make sense. No one's experience is that they receive everything they ask for, but those who ask in faith probably receive more. That would be an interesting study, although, how would you measure belief?

Taking back the temple

2011-02-08T18:27:00.000-08:00

Matthew 21:12-17

I just read the book of John the other day. Early in that gospel, Jesus cleanses the temple. But that's all He does. Here in Matthew, He cleanses the temple. He got rid of the money changers and all of that. But He doesn't just cleanse the temple, He also sets up shop so that it becomes what it was meant to be. The blind and the lame came to Him to be healed, and the little children shouted praises. It was meant to be a place of healing and worship, not business and commerce. That's one of the big indictments leveled against our modern church. It is viewed as a place that wants your money. Our emphasis on the right things might help to change how people view us. Or maybe not. But either way, let us make it a house of prayer and healing and love.

The Mighty Jesus has Struck Out

2011-02-06T07:26:00.000-08:00

Matthew 21:1-11

I think I sort of get what the Jewish leaders were most afraid of at this point. Probably, they didn't have a lot of patience with the criticisms and teachings He was speaking. But I think they were afraid of the civil unrest that could result from all of this. Sure, they weren't big fans of Rome, but they had it pretty good, and the status quo of Pax Romana was much better than some sort of misguided revolt led by this Jesus character. Chances are, they would all be stamped out like so many ants, by the boot of the Roman Legions.

To be sure, the people were expecting some sort of revolt, a recapturing of the glory of earlier days. Judas Maccabeus, who had lead an earlier successful revolt, is said to have entered Jerusalem in much a similar way to Jesus' triumphal entry. The people were making a clear statement about what they were expecting from Jesus. Hosanna - Save us! That's what the leaders were afraid of, and what finally pushed them to act. It's one thing to plot someone's death. It's another to actually put that plan into action.

I've always wondered what the deal with the "donkey and her colt" thing was. Did Jesus sit on both? That'd be kinda weird, especially since the version of this story doesn't mention both (John 12:12-16). I figure He probably sat on the colt, and probably the mom followed along as well. John probably didn't figure those were important details and condensed it down a bit.

With the crowd chanting for Jesus, it kind of reminds me of a baseball game. Some big slugger comes up to the plate with the bases loaded and the home team down by 3 with two outs in the ninth. They are all hoping for a home run; even expecting one. But in their eyes, Jesus eventually struck out and was met with a chorus of boos (crucify the bum!). That's how quickly the crowd can turn on you when you don't give'em what they want. But then again, that was never Jesus' plan.

I don't care if you're blind... Can't you see I'm busy!

2011-02-05T13:00:00.000-08:00

Matthew 20:29-34

You get little snippets of Jesus' life with the stories from the gospels. The kind of stories you tell about your old friends. This one time we did this... Oh and another time he said this. Lots of memorable events and such.

Here, there is a large crowd following Jesus. Next stop, Jerusalem, and the entourage is eager for what they figure is coming next. The two blind men are a bit of an annoyance. "Can't they see that we're in a hurry?" (pun intended). The blind men didn't seem to have much value in the eyes of the crowd. "Shut up!" they yell. Why? These blind men were hoping Jesus would heal them. But that was an inconvenience to the crowd. Any one who is not of the norm is most often an inconvenience, whether it's a disability, a social awkwardness, a dissenting view, etc. It's often difficult to find compassion in these sorts of spots. I wonder if the crowd learned their lesson in this instance. Jesus had compassion on the blind men, even when the crowd did not. They had a different agenda (heading to Jerusalem for the "triumphal entry"), but those sorts of things are never as important as the needs of real people. Jesus had the time to stop and heal those men.

Too often, we are too busy with things, and don't have time for people. Our churches have programs, but people fall through the cracks. Most people seem to like it that way. Well, I shouldn't say that, because I don't know most people. It's what I think I observe. But maybe they are more like me, going through the motions because you don't know what else to do. In most churches you can slip in and out on a Sunday and not be obligated in any way. I never really liked that, but it's how I acted, because I didn't know what else to do. I'm at a new church now, a smaller one. I'm taking it upon myself to make other people important. I want to know them, and them to know me. How else will we be able to respond to the needs of each other the way that Jesus responded to the blind men. Jesus loved other people, and He practiced that all the time. However, we are the ones who need the practice. Hopefully, that circle of compassion will expand ever outwards, beyond the church and our friends, but you gotta start somewhere.

The Greatest is the Leastest

2011-02-04T07:40:00.000-08:00

Matthew 20:20-28

I love how Jesus' last statement just gets brushed aside. Yeah, yeah, you're going to die... but what we really want to know is, "Who will sit on your left and right in your kingdom". The narrative doesn't dwell on Jesus' statements about His upcoming crucifixion, it keeps right on moving. We end up where we just were. Again, Jesus is left to try to instruct His disciples on what the kingdom is really like.

The sons of Zebedee manage to strike first. Everyone senses that something is going to happen (although Jesus has told them what that will be). Their mom makes sure to put in a good word for her boys. It's almost like Jesus is taken aback by what is going on. Seriously? You guys are just not getting it, are you?

What comes next in verses 24-28 has become one of those defining moments of scripture, at least in how I try to live up to what God wants from us. It's right up there with dying to self, although I suppose this could be a subcategory of that. Whoever wants to be great, must be a servant to all. Anytime I've had some sort position of authority, I've felt the weight of this. As a leader, I am called to be a servant. How much different would our churches and and world be if our leaders saw themselves in the light of Jesus' instructions here?

Facing death

2011-02-03T15:14:00.001-08:00

Matthew 20:17-19

I wonder what it must have been like for Jesus to know when He was going to die. For some time, He had hinted at it, trying to tell his disciples what was in store. It's not the sort of thing one just blurts out. His disciples probably didn't want to hear something like that. And why would they believe him? That's not where things were headed. This was the Messiah, ready to lead them to freedom from their oppressors.

But there I go, associating with the disciples. I normally default to asking myself, "How did they receive and understand what Jesus was saying?" But what about Jesus Himself? How did He feel having to tell them something like this. To know that something so grave awaited Him, and that no one really believed Him. No one could, it seems, would or could sympathize with what was He was going to go through. How alone would He have felt? He had no doubts about His purpose and what was ahead, but that doesn't mean He had to like it, or that He wouldn't have appreciated his followers to walk beside Him instead of running away. I sometimes picture Jesus as pretty emotionless, but I'm sure it wasn't easy to live with that knowledge for so long.

I'm Better than You Are. Neener, neener, neener.

2011-01-29T06:46:00.000-08:00

Matthew 20:1-16

The thing about parables is that they are "big picture" examples. What I mean is, you can't get too caught up in the details. It's about the forest and not the trees so much. I think that's why I like them so much. I'm not always good with details, I'm more of a big picture kinda guy.

Jesus has spent the last little while trying to explain something that's really big, and distill it into morsels that we can digest. Little children will inherit the kingdom. It is hard for a rich man to enter. Etc. Now, He is telling a story about these workers in the vineyard. The big picture idea that I take away from this is...

Well, let me think about that for a second. The last workers only worked a short time and got a whole day's wage. Lucky them. If anything, they should have been paid a smaller amount, but the owner did what He did, and that's fine. The first workers figured they should get more. Why? Because compared to those other guys, they did way more work. But therein lies the problem. The owner isn't comparing anyone to anyone else. He is simply rewarding people as He sees fit. It could be that He figured that anyone who comes and works in His field should get the same wage, based not on the amount of work, but that they are there working the first place. No comparisons needed. You work here, then you get paid.

We are the ones who are worried about how we compare to others. Who's richer, prettier, smarter, better. A child I know kept asking my daughter to do increasingly difficult things until she found something that she could do that my daughter could not. Then, she triumphantly exclaimed, "I'm better than you because I can do that and you can't". What? No, you're not. But perhaps that is something like how silly it is for God to watch us squabble over who is better, who has accomplished more, etc., etc.

In the end, we are not workers, we are children. And the father has a place even for the prodigal (much to the chagrin of the other kids).

Who is "Rich"?

2011-01-26T15:41:00.000-08:00

Matthew 19:23-30

Jesus says it is hard for a rich person to enter heaven. At what point does someone become rich? I never think of myself as rich, but wealth is always comparative. How much does one need to live, and what point is someone actually poor or rich? For Canada, where I live, I'm average. Nearly average income, nearly average home, a wife, some kids, a couple vehicles, etc. So, I'm average, right? Not rich or poor, just average and boring.

But, if you go to a site like http://www.globalrichlist.com/, your perspective changes. According to their calculations, I'm in the top 1% of all people on earth. Crazy! So, I must be rich.

When I lived in Paraguay, I knew a family who hadn't had any normal income for a couple of years. Yet, they were some of the happiest people I've know. They always trusted God to provide for them. I'm not like that. My washer is on the fritz and I'm worried about what's going to become of it and how much it's going to cost me. Maybe being rich means you have too many things to worry about in this life, where moth and rust destroy. The difficulty for us rich people is that we don't have to rely on God, and it works against us. Perhaps poverty is more valuable than it seems.

Sad, but rich

2011-01-17T16:13:00.000-08:00

Matthew 19:16-22

I wonder if sometimes the rich young ruler gets a bad rep. He seems sincere in his seeking out of Jesus. He has a real desire to know the answer to his question. Somehow, in spite of his riches and his wholehearted keeping of the law, he still had no idea if he had eternal life. I don't know what he expected to hear from Jesus, but it obviously wasn't the answer he got. It says he went away sad. I think that's the sort of reaction you have when you are blind sided by something and need time to think about it. There's nothing that says he ever took Jesus' advice, and the implication is that he probably didn't. But perhaps he had a good long ponder over the whole thing.

Jesus says there is only One who is good. That's in response to the rich young ruler asking what good thing he can do. Perhaps the implication is that we cannot do anything good per se because we ourselves are not good. Or more likely, those good things that we do don't amount to making us good in ourselves. That must be it.

Kids and Kingdoms

2011-01-07T07:01:00.000-08:00

Matthew 19:13-15

I think I miss the power of statements like this. I love my kids. Most of the energy that I expend in a day goes to their benefit. I work to support them (and my lovely wife, too). I play with them, help them, teach them. In our day and age in the Western world, that's not unusual, but history hasn't always been so kind to children. They weren't always valued very highly. When Jesus says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, that must have been a head scratcher. What is He talking about? They haven't earned it yet. We make the dough and they get the glory? Seriously?

But I suppose that's part of the point. They haven't earned anything, but they can't anyways; no one can. Being a part of the kingdom isn't about that. Children are a part of whatever they are born into, with no choice of their own. We are born into the kingdom of God through Jesus Christ.

You can... but you shouldn't.

2010-12-31T20:56:00.000-08:00

Matthew 19:1-12

The question that the pharisees bring to Jesus is a similar sort of question that people ask all the time; Is it lawful? That's always what people want to know... what can we get away with. Is it against the law to download songs off torrents? Buy pirated dvd's in Asia? Etc., etc. But it's the wrong question. We shouldn't ask if something is allowed (or "lawful"), we should ask if it if right (should we do it?) Not to harp on it, but internet piracy is a good example. People quickly realized that laws hadn't caught up with technology. It wasn't against the law to do such and such on the internet. Legally, there were lots of grey areas, and by the time the contrast was turned up on those issues, the cat was already out of the bag. But legality isn't at the heart of it. "Can I" shouldn't be considered until "should I" is answered.

Jesus responds to the pharisees by saying essentially, "Well, divorce isn't something that you should do, but it's been allowed because of your hard hearts." He does say that Moses is the one that allows for it, but in any event, it was allowed. It wasn't right, but is was allowed.

The law isn't at the heart of what Jesus was about. In the gospels, He's definitely shorter on commandments than we should expect if He was here to give us a new or revised morality. He wants our hearts to change, not our actions primarily. Laws are not so important if our hearts have been made new.

I wish my bankers would read this one :)

2010-12-30T15:52:00.000-08:00

Mathew 18:23-35

The parable of the unmerciful servant. I once did a sermon on this one. The first servant owed way more than can possibly be imagined by us. At present day values, it's in the several billions of dollars. The king forgave it, after the servant begged him to. It was a big deal, but the king is very merciful. The second servant owed considerably less. I think that's about 4 months wages, give or take. For me, that's around $20,000. That's a lot of money. It's not several billion dollars, but for the average joe, that's a lot of money.

I think that's part of the point. This unmerciful servant was owed a goodly sum of money, and had every right to act as he did. But, these are special circumstances. He's just been forgiven a hhuuuugggggeeeeee debt, and what is owed to him is small, but only in comparison. What we are called upon to forgive will often be a big deal to us. Some wrongs are immense, and not easily forgiven, and in many cases not forgotten at all. But in comparison they are small against what has been forgiven us when we are forgiven by God. There is no downplaying of the seriousness of what was owed the servant, just that in the light of the immense forgiveness he was shown, he did not do likewise.

Forgiveness is one of the essential aspects of what God calls us to. There is no law of forgiveness on the books of our governments. Do not steal, do not murder... these things translate into things that can be punished and controlled. But no one can force us to forgive. No law will suffice to curb our unforgiveness. Jesus doesn't give us examples of what we ought not to do, but of who we should be. Be the neighbour, like the Samaritan. Be forgiving, like the king in this story. Sure, there are consequences to not doing these things. But we are called and equipped to be like the Samaritan and like the king.

I don't know how many times I've told you... maybe 77!

2010-12-21T10:47:00.000-08:00

Matthew 18:18-22

I was wonder the thing about binding and loosing, if there isn't some sort of picture that I'm missing. Like tying up a load or something. I wonder that because I don't get it. I'm missing something. What is the significance of that reflection in heaven of what is done on earth? I'm not sure.

Where two or three are gathered, there Jesus is with them. I often hear this quoted at churches about how He is there in the service with us. But this statement is made in the midst of the talk about relationships, and how we deal with each other. The disciples would probably have taken this not literally, but figuratively, seeing as how Jesus was a person and couldn't be everywhere. In other places, Jesus identifies Himself as "the other person" who we give a glass of water to, etc. Perhaps in these situations, as we are gathered together, He is there in the midst of us as that other person.

In the last bit, Peter asks how many times we should forgive someone. What is the limit of our forgiveness. Jesus says there is no limit. Keep forgiving. But in verse 17, Jesus tells us not to associate with someone who has wronged us and is unrepentant (at least that's what I get from it). But now we are told to forgive indefinitely. Maybe forgiveness is somewhat dependent on repentance? I wouldn't make it a direct correlation, but maybe some sort of consideration must be given to it. Probably depends on the situation.

If your brother sins against you... Update your Facebook status!

2010-12-20T10:30:00.000-08:00

Matthew 18:15-17

I don't think most of us know how to interact with each other properly nowadays. By saying that, I suppose I am indicating that there is a "proper" way to interact. But perhaps I am just a throwback to simpler times... sigh.

My wife was lamenting the other day that a friend of hers just had a baby, and she knew all about it already. Problem was, she hadn't spoken with her friend. She had learned it all from Facebook. And not just her friend's Facebook updates, but her friend's friends' Facebook updates as well. There used to be a time when you'd get a phone call and share that joy together. Now the circle can narrow immensely. You don't need to talk to people about it, because they already know.

If your brother sins against you, you should talk to him privately and deal with it that way. You don't have to publicize the whole thing. It's always been easier to gossip about these things, but now it's just about the default condition to publicize things, rather than keep them secret. But how many things would end better if we just dealt with them the way Jesus suggests? If the try to do it quietly, and that doesn't work out, fine, start broadening the circle. But don't "tweet" your grievances at your fist convenience.

Who is the most important in the kingdom?

2010-12-17T15:16:00.000-08:00

Matthew 18:10-14

Whether or not a shepherd would actually do what is described in this passage (I think I've heard it both ways), the idea is the same. You are important enough that God will drop everything He is doing (which is probably quite a lot) in order to track you down and return you to Himself. Isn't that amazing. Don't ever think you're not worth much. You are worth everything to the one who made you.

I didn't realize until just now, but this is the final answer to the disciples' question at the beginning of the chapter. "Who is the most important?"

Everyone...Everyone...Everyone...

I'm Missing a Hand... Anyone seen it?

2010-12-14T23:16:00.000-08:00

Matthew 18:6-9

So, should we really lop off our hands if they cause us to sin? That's what He says. Is the case that hopeless that our only hope to be sinless is to cut off hands and poke out eyes? I think Jesus is trying to bring home the weight of the situation. From what I understand, the Pharisees felt that they could live sinlessly if they just tried hard enough. But Jesus doesn't tell us to try harder, He tells us to go to extreme measures. You can't just try harder, you have to get to the root of the problem. But why mention all of this here? He was just talking about who is the greatest in the kingdom. Then He was talking about causing being a stumbling block to those "little ones". It's a serious situation, this sin stuff. At this point He's working in negatives. He's not giving us the cure, he's just giving the diagnosis. I think in some respects, His followers needed a better understanding of what was wrong before they could be given the answer to their problems.

Caesars and Children

2010-12-12T14:11:00.000-08:00

Matthew 18:1-5

I find more and more that I want to know what it was like to live in the time of Jesus' ministry. There are still so many parallels with our day and age, but there are so many things that have changed as well. This passage does have parallels in our age, but it's different.

If you asked today, "Who is the greatest person of our age?", what would you say? President Obama or George Bush or Bill Clinton? Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking? J.K. Rowling or George Lucas? Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie? Sydney Crosby or Alex Rodriguez? Certainly, there is a broad spectrum to choose from nowadays, depending on what you see as important. The arts, politics, science, sports, etc.

In the first century Roman World, everyone knew who was most important... Caesar. But he was one of a long line of rulers and conquerers. Alexander (the Great!, no less) and his kind cast a long shadow over history. They were the greatest. And it goes on down the line. They had people under them, that were more important than the next guys and so on down to the bottom. The disciples had to ask, then; Who is the greatest in God's kingdom? They asked because they wanted to know. They wanted to be that guy. The most important ones.

God turns the world upside down. The most powerful aren't the greatest. The most successful aren't the greatest.

Why children? Well, kids have no claim to fame. No power. No authority. No nuthin'. They rely on others for everything. As adults, you don't get very far living like that, especially in the first century. Nowadays, we have governments that look after us, welfare and health care and all that. In the western world, we tend to look after people like that (but that's mostly attributed to the fact that Jesus told us to.) I don't think this was one of those things that people should have known anyway, like "love your neighbour". This was new, and different, and sort of stupid, if not for the fact that God wants us to as little children, to live in that personal powerlessness and reliance on Him.

Easier said than done, but God's not building a kingdom of power... He's building a kingdom of love.

2010-10-23T08:24:00.000-07:00

Matthew 17:24-27

What strikes me most about this when Jesus says, "So that we don't offend them..." Since when did He care about offending people? I suppose one must pick their battles, but why this one? Jesus never seems overly concerned with what people do with their money. The subject does come up, with the rich young ruler for example, but it's not one of the primary areas of concern. So maybe it's not that big a deal. Jesus seems to indicate that God doesn't really want your money, He doesn't tax His children. In a different place, He tells people to pay their taxes to Caesar, because he's the one who wants your taxes.

But why does He choose not to offend people over this issue? He didn't take the same tack with washing hands before eating, or Sabbath issues. He was more than willing to offend over these issues. He was willing to take a stand on those issues, but not so much about money. I think it warrants looking into a bit more.

Of Mustard Seeds and Men

2010-10-17T14:15:00.000-07:00

Matthew 17:13-21

This section for me is both an encouragement and a kick-in-the-butt. It is encouraging, because it is yet another spot where Jesus' disciples didn't get it right. They weren't able to heal this man's son. They were "failures", at least in the instance, and Jesus rebukes them for it. That's the kick-in-the-butt part. I can side with the disciples, because that's usually where I fall. But in so doing, I fall on the side of Jesus' rebuke, too.

A lack of faith isn't dismissed. Jesus is harsh, calling them "unbelieving and perverse". That's me, too. I know it. It's encouraging to know that the disciples didn't stay like that. Eventually, they become all that God intends for them. That gives me hope that I will, too.

I read a biography of Francis and Edith Schaeffer today. God did amazing things through them. Exciting, adventurous things. He did that because they were faithful to Him in the little things. They prayed unceasingly and relied on God for everything. I've often longed to be like that, but always come up short. I make efforts, but to no avail. I wonder why. I wish sometimes that I could meet someone like them and ask where they started. What was it like in the beginning when they were just learning that faithfulness? Maybe I just give up too easily. Anyway, after reading that bio, I will renew my efforts to pray and rely on God.

About the mustard seed, I think it's actually a more important picture than I've realized. Your "average person" wasn't seen as having great faith. And great deeds were seen as the realm of the great prophets and giants of faith. So why would your average person even expect anything of God in response to his or her prayers. I think I take for granted that God is concerned with my life, not everyone knows that. But faith the size of a little seed doesn't seem beyond the grasp of anyone, even me. It's not the size of the faith, that matters. That's good news, because I feel like my faith is in poppy seed territory sometimes.

As an aside, it's interesting to note that the man in this story saw it as a problem that the disciples couldn't heal his son. It wasn't an "oh, well" moment. It was a "what's wrong with these guys" thing. There was such a strong expectation people had of Jesus and His followers that when someone didn't get healed, it was out of the ordinary. That's the power of God, and that's what I would like to see around me.

2010-06-28T21:05:00.000-07:00

Matthew 17:1-13

The thing I've always wondered about "the transfiguration" is this... How do the disciples know that it's Moses and Elijah? Really, they've never seen them before. I suppose they could have overheard them talking to each other, or heck, maybe they even introduced themselves. I can almost see the nervous energy coursing through Peter as he suggests building some shelters for them. It all must have been quite a lot to take in overall. And then to top it all off, they hear the voice from the cloud that freaks them right out.

I'm not sure where I got it from, but I always sort of pictured the disciples as being a ways off from Jesus when this all goes down. But there's nothing to indicate that, and I think it probably makes more sense if they were right there with them as this was going on. It seems like this whole scene goes on for the disciples' benefit. Jesus led them up there to see what was going to happen. Otherwise it's sort of a random occurrence with no reason for it. And of course, if the disciples hadn't been there, we wouldn't have heard about it. That makes me wonder if things like this happened to Jesus more often than is recorded. He usually went off to a solitary place, and if something like this would have happened, no one else would no, and there'd be no real reason for Jesus to tell anyone about it. Especially since He didn't want the disciples telling anyone about what they had just seen.

I think He's trying to prepare them for what's coming up. He mentions again about waiting until He is raised from the dead. That's a big statement, but the disciples don't seem to park on that. It seems they're still overwhelmed with having met Elijah.

There's so many details one would love to have. The gospels don't have a lot of space for these sorts of details. They are more New York Times than Encyclopedia Britannica, they are just telling what happened, not giving you exhaustive explanations about it. Still, I'd like to know more. What did they talk about? Why did this happen in the first place? I can see how Moses and Elijah could be seen as "passing the mantle" to Jesus, so to speak. Moses was the great leader of the people, and Elijah was the great prophet who was taken up to heaven. And now Jesus was the fulfillment of everything they foreshadowed. The disciples (and us) are meant to connect the dots on that one. And you can see that they are. Isn't Elijah supposed to come first? they ask. They're starting to see who Jesus is, but they are trying to fit it in with what they've been told about Him in the teachings and doctrines they were instructed in growing up. Although there aren't a lot of details, the ones that are there show us the disciples grappling with what's going on around them. I think I respect them a little bit more realizing this. They often get a bad rep for not cluing in sooner, but I think maybe, given the circumstances, they were doing pretty good.

Living Up to Dying

2010-06-09T09:27:00.000-07:00

Matthew 16:21-28

In my own life, Jesus' statements here are the defining points of what He's trying to get across to us. Whoever wants to follow after Jesus must "die to self". Whoever wants to save his life must lose it. As I approach my life and what God has called us to, I always in the back of my mind measure things against these ideas.

What does it mean to die to self? I don't think I have that nailed down, and I doubt I will ever grasp all of the implications. But it's not the "knowing" it's the "doing". Putting others first is easier said than done. Putting down the things that I like for the sake of Christ is easier said than done. I'm never sure that my convictions are strong enough to compel me to do half the things I know I should in the first place.

I look at someone like Bruchko, and I feel like anything I try to do is pretty meaningless. If you're not familiar with him, Bruchko was a guy from the States who just picked up and went to Colombia, with nothing. He learned the language, went deep into the jungle and shared the good news with one of the tribes there. He basically gave up everything to go and tell these people about Jesus. Is that the standard by which I should measure myself. If so, that's a pretty high standard.

I wonder if I waste too much time. It's not that I spend hours doing nothing, but rather that I don't seem to do much constructive with regards to "building the kingdom of God". I try to live a life that's honouring to God, but is that enough?

The other thing I've noticed, is that not many others seem too much concerned with this. Maybe it makes people uncomfortable to think that Jesus has lofty expectations of them and their time and their resources? I rarely hear anything other than passing reference in sermons. I used to try to include it whenever I could, but often felt like people weren't that interested in hearing about it.

I know I'll be contemplating what it means to "die to self" for the rest of my life. It's central to my understanding of what Jesus wants from me. My only hope is that I will actually be able to live up to dying.

Bike or Drive?

2010-05-16T02:03:00.000-07:00

If I drive my car, my best time to work is just over 8 minutes, but on average, it's about 10. Five km's each way. Round trip makes about 50 cents worth of gas. I have 13 shifts per four weeks, so in a year, that's about 169 trips, or $85. Somehow I thought I'd be saving more money...

Now, if I got rid of the car altogether, I'd also save the $65 per month on the insurance, which is $780. Include some repairs and oil changes and probably somewhere around $1000 per year. Well, maybe closer to $1500, I know there's some stuff that needs fixing. I'm not including the cost of the vehicle, it's long since paid for and I think I've gotten my money out of it.

Anyway, that seems like a fairly small percentage of our income compared to what I thought it would be. Will I notice a big difference. Probably not.

If I ride my bike, my average time is about 14 minutes, but I think over time I could get that down to 10 (I'm by no means in good shape). I really don't know what the cost of maintaining my bike will be. If I decided to go all hard core and bike in the winter (-40!?) I suppose I'd have to spring for some different tires and appropriate clothing. In any event, I imagine it'd be much cheaper than keeping the car. There's definitely something to be said about the convenience of a car. My time to get to work may be roughly equivalent, but not to anywhere else that I might go.

Time is worth money... that's if you choose to pay. I always feel my time is precious, and adding 30 minutes of travel to my day robs me of time I could spend with my family or doing something else. I've always been hesitant about biking for that reason. But I've found that so far I like biking. I feel immensely more energetic, but also more tired in a good way. While I'm awake, I feel like I have more energy, but when I when I am tired, I sure am tired (I'm on my feet at work quite a bit and it's a 12 shift).

In the end, the trade offs are all positive for me, so I think I'll keep biking. The time I lose is negligible, as is the money I save. But I feel better, and I'm getting some much needed exercise in there. It also helps me to be a little less dependent on something I wish not to have to depend on too deeply.

Someone Special

2010-04-18T15:28:00.000-07:00

Matthew 16:13-20

What were people saying about Jesus? John the baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah... All sorts of things. Certainly the Pharisees and Sadducees didn't have much nice to say about Him. Peter recognizes Him as the Christ.

People still say lots of things about Jesus. Some good, some not-so-good. I think what you say about Him has a lot to do with what you want to say about Him. The disciples were close to Him. Peter wanted Him to be the Christ. He wasn't wrong, of course. It's easy to read too much into it, but I sense some hesitation in Peter's answer, as though He's looking for confirmation of that declaration. Jesus confirms it readily, and rewards Peter's confession with expanding what the implications of it are. What exactly is meant by all the talk of rocks is incidental to the fact that Jesus announces His is beginning to build His community of followers. It may be the confession that is the rock. It may just be that Peter is the first to make that confession, so it starts with him almost by default. In any event, Jesus has begun to build His church.

Dense Bread

2010-04-17T11:19:00.000-07:00

Matthew 16:5-12

I have a bread maker at home (no, not just my wife). I don't use it as often as I would like. I've got a couple of recipes I like to use. Bread can be finicky. One time, my wife unplugged the machine part way through. By the time I realized, it was too late. I turned it back on, but it didn't turn out. There was another time when I forgot the yeast. I didn't realize this until I saw the brick that had baked in the bottom of the pan. I just wasn't paying attention well enough. I overlooked the obvious.

When Jesus starts talking about the yeast of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, I think they overlook the obvious. They start thinking about bread, but He didn't mention anything about bread. He reminds them of the feeding of the 5,000 and 4,000. They should have thought of that, too. But how quickly we forget the important things. One of the most important parts of baking bread is the yeast. If I had forgotten the honey, I never would have noticed. Repeatedly, the disciples overlook the things that Jesus has already done when they are faced with new teachings. In my walk with God, I overlook lots of things that He has said and done, and when I come to a new challenge, I am at a loss. Perhaps I should stop and think of what He has already done, and that would help me to see what He is about to do.

Signs

2010-04-16T15:37:00.000-07:00

Matthew 16:1-4

Red sky at night, fisherman's delight... Red sky in morning, fisherman's warning. I believe that's how it goes. At some point people learn what to expect out of the world and out of life. Sometimes it comes from wisdom passed on from others, but the majority of that goes in one ear and out the other. I think that experience is the real teacher of these things. We see a red sky in the morning, and later that day the weather is bad. I remember living in Minnesota for a few years, and you could feel that a storm was coming. The sky, the air... you could sense it. I didn't know at first what to expect, but over time I observed and learned.

Jesus' indictment of the Pharisees and Sadducees was that they weren't paying attention. They asked for a sign, yet, Jesus had been giving them signs over and over again. Healings, teachings, miracles. What better signs could you want? Had they observed the signs, they would have seen what the weather was going to be like. Jesus couldn't really give them what they were looking for, because they couldn't recognize the signs that were given.

I think it would be like a bridge that has fallen down. On the road you would put up barricades, maybe some stop signs, or a do not enter sign. Then someone drives off the end of the bridge. After being rescued, the driver is asked, "why did you drive off the end of the bridge? Didn't you see the signs?" The driver replies, "I didn't see any sign that said, "the bridge is out, don't drive off the edge of it!" You don't need signs like that, you just need to pay attention to the signs that are there.

I think when people, even today, want something more out of Jesus, it's really because they want nothing out of Him. There are enough signs. Look at the ones that are there. Feels like a storm brewing to me...

I Stand Amazed

2010-04-08T16:11:00.001-07:00

Matthew 15:29-31

I have a friend who prays for people, and they get healed. He's prayed for people he knows and doesn't know here in the city. He just came back from a trip to Mexico where he was also involved in healings. He's a normal, unassuming guy. He's not trying to do anything but bless others and be faithful to what God has called him to. I think what God does through him is pretty amazing.

He has gifts that I don't have. Whether they are ones God would want me to have is maybe a different question, but I don't have them. As such, I am blessed to hear my friend's stories, and they strengthen my faith. I praise God because of what He does through my friend, because I know these are not ordinary things... these are miracles.

When Jesus was healing, people were amazed. And they rightly praised God for it. Healings are not an everyday occurrence, at least not in my world. I'm more likely to call the doctor than pray for healing. And the things that afflict me are pretty insignificant (a headache?) compared to the reasons people came to Jesus (blind, lame, etc.)

I'm glad that God works through other people. I need to see Him working in and through others because it shows me that all this stuff isn't just in my head. It's real, and I stand amazed.

It's a Dog's Life

2010-04-07T13:00:00.000-07:00

Matthew 15:21-28

At first read, I was troubled by this verse. Jesus doesn't seem to treat this woman very nicely. At first He doesn't respond to her, and then He says something about dogs. Hmm. Upon further reflection, it's probably not as bad as it looks, but because of my initial trouble I don't want to just look for a reason to explain it away. Too often we do that, and overlook the sincere difficulties that people maybe have about verses like this.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two instances where Jesus didn't respond like this to gentiles. The Samaritan woman at the well (who was half-breed, but all the more reason to be rude) and the centurion. So why this time? Jesus often responded to people in a way that was personal to them. Even with His own people, He didn't always respond the same way. Perhaps this was a way to draw out her faith, which He ends up praising her for.

The other thing I notice is the response of the disciples. "Tell her to beat it, she's bugging us". They show a bit more disdain, or at least Peter does. Maybe there was some sort of object lesson in it for the disciples, too.

Sam Malone

2010-04-06T01:00:00.000-07:00

Matthew 15:10-20

I watched a lot of TV growing up. One of those shows that I watched often was Cheers. One of the main characters was Sam Malone, the bar owner. He was a former baseball star who became and alcoholic and lost it all. He got sober somehow (I'm not sure of all the details) and became the proprietor of the bar called "Cheers". The thing I never really noticed about the show, was the juxtaposition of the alcoholic bartender (I was too young to realize the implications). Sam was surrounded by the very thing that destroyed him, yet it seemed to be powerless to affect him. Sam always had a bottle of water in his hand.

Really, all of the things that surround us are powerless against us. Whether it's alcohol, drugs, chocolate, pornography, shopping, etc. etc. etc., these things in and of themselves have no power. They cannot make us "unclean", as Jesus says. The ceremonial laws about washing hands and such didn't really matter because they couldn't change what was on the inside of a person. No amount of ceremony is going to make me less lustful or addicted or whatever. There needs to be a change on the inside.

Sam Malone was by no means portrayed as a believer, but something had changed in him to where he no longer was tempted by the alcohol that surrounded him. It's easy to have those sorts of happy endings on TV, in real life, I think it's a little more difficult. The Buddhist must get rid of all desires, but it's easier said than done. Sure, people have the capacity to change themselves. People kick addictions all the time. Bad habits are broken and good ones are formed. But I think that deep down inside we are left unchanged until God does a work in our hearts. The change needed is so drastic that He says He will remove our hearts of stone and replace them with hearts of flesh. The Buddhist and the celebrity rehabbers are left on their own to change themselves, but the gift of God is the Holy Spirit which helps us to be the people God has intended us to be. That is the only way we can be truly changed... from the inside out.

The Doctrines of Men

2010-04-05T01:00:00.000-07:00

Matthew 15:1-9

I found a list of the top 100 "Christian" blogs recently. I thought I'd check them out. The first thing that struck me about most of them is the ads. Everyone is trying to sell you something. Maybe moreso than most of the other sorts of blogs I read (mostly gadget and design blogs). There's a lot of opinion stuff about this and that, a lot of talking about church and about God, but it seems from where I sit that most of it is just busyness. We make all of the trappings of our religion the central part of it. I was reading C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce the other day, and one of the characters talks about how at first we do things to know and love God better, but eventually become ends in themselves. I thought immediately about my music. I think at times my music is and end in itself, rather than the means of loving God that I originally wanted it to be.

Another thing I noticed about some of blogs at the top of the list is that many of them (it seems) are written by Calvinists. There's nothing wrong with that; just an observation. However, if I can stereotype for a moment, it seems that many Calvinists tend to insist on their theology in a way that seems like an end in itself, rather than a way of knowing and loving God better. What was surely originated as such, has turned into something that has a life of it's own, for it's own sake. But this isn't limited to Calvinistm by any means. Its seems like the "worship music" industry has become an end in itself as well. All I'll say is, "Don't get me started on that one!"

Anyway, it's like the pharisees. They had exalted all of these traditions as an end in themselves. It was to the point that the traditions would overrule the very laws of God. What was initially meant to help with knowing and loving God had turned into an end in itself.

I was especially convicted in thinking about all of this, because too much of what I do has become and end in itself. I want that first love back, not the mechanics that I go thought these days.

Walking on Water

2010-03-26T00:18:00.000-07:00

Matthew 14:22-36

I often wonder what Jesus prayed about. He went off by Himself a lot. I always assumed He had some sort of different relationship with the Father than the rest of us do. Not because we can't have that same sort relationship, probably because we just don't. He was like us, so we at least have the potential to be like him. But the vast majority of us don't live up to that potential. At least I don't, I can't speak for everyone, obviously. At times I don't even know where to begin. There was a long stretch where I would try to pray, and I would be at a total loss for words. Even now, I don't always know what to pray when it comes down to it, but I think it's getting better. I figure some of the mystics through the centuries were able to approach a sort of prayer life like Jesus, people like Teresa of Avila and Francis of Assisi. But all that's conjecture.

The whole walking on the water part is interesting. It's another one of those miracles that Jesus didn't have to do. He must have had a point to prove to His disciples. They were pretty freaked out (I'm sure I would have been, too). It's interesting, too, that Peter's ability to walk on the water was dependent solely on his faith. Jesus was the same from start to finish, the only thing that changed was Peter's response. To me, that says that my faith plays a part in what I'm able to accomplish. There may be things that Jesus wants me to do, but without my faith, they won't be done (to my own detriment, not His). I think Jesus wanted the disciples to step out of the boat like this, but only one did, and he didn't get very far. Lest we be too hard on them, they were just in the learning stages, and not everyone gets it right the first time. He probably didn't expect them to do very well, but that doesn't diminish the lesson, especially in light of the fact that they bowed down in worship to Him in the end.

Again, I'm left wondering what more Jesus could have accomplished in my life by now if I had shown the faith to accomplish it. Would we be missionaries now? I know that in some sense we are where we are supposed to be. I can clearly see God's hand in the way our lives have progressed over the last several years, but maybe He'd have preferred some other path. I just accepted a new job at work today. It's shift work, but it pays well, and it certainly will provide for our family. Anyway, I hope I can get out of the boat when the time comes.

How many people have YOU had over for dinner?

2010-03-24T22:26:00.000-07:00

Matthew 14:13-21

There are some stories that just don't need a comment. I think this is one of them. Not that it does not need commenting, it's just that it's a straightforward telling of what happened. I always find the version in John much more memorable, and Mark has some little bits that I like, too. But this account in Matthew just tells it like it is. Jesus fed over 5 thousand people with just a few bits of food. It's meant to be striking. It's not normal. But all of the stories that Matthew records show Jesus as anything but normal.
Miracles are a funny thing. I sometimes feel this need to try and justify them. They are outside of what materialists would allow for, and that somehow makes them suspect. But I think Matthew just intends for us to take this at face value. This happened. Period. What you want to do with that is your issue. You can try to explain it away because something like this doesn't fit into your presuppositions. You can accept it as having happened and see Jesus for who He is. Or you can pick a spot in between. Matthew isn't trying to explain anything, and he doesn't add any information for further reflection (like John does).
I like this story, because it's simple. And also because it's not a miracle Jesus had to do. He could have sent everyone away. Most people could probably have fended for themselves. There isn't the same pressing need that you feel in the healings and the demon casting outings. But Jesus could do miracles just to be nice. He wanted to bless these people, and that was enough. It's comforting to think that Jesus wants to bless, even when it's not a pressing need.

Herod and John

2010-03-23T03:44:00.000-07:00

Matthew 14:1-12

I've always wondered about that Herod guy. If you read the story, it mentions that he wanted to kill John the Baptist, but he didn't out of fear of the people. But when his step-daughter asks for John's head, Herod is grieved. You would think he'd have responded differently, but I think one of the other gospels mentions that he liked listening to John. Maybe he grew a little attached to John. Maybe he just didn't like being put on the spot like that. But it's a strange story, all around. He's probably drunk, and his step-daughter's dancing pleased him so much that he offered whatever she wanted. Uh, weird, or at least creepy.

As faithful as John was, it's sort of a tragic end, if you think about it. He heralded the coming of the Messiah. He was the greatest of all men, except for Jesus. And he ends up beheaded because of the whims of these people. God's never been one to treat His people with kid gloves. Often, suffering seems to be a badge of honour for us. I've always been struck by the fact that the early church felt fortunate to be able to suffer for Christ. I kind of hope that John didn't know why he was being beheaded at the time, at least it would have saved him the indignity.

I Believe... Lord, Help my Unbelief

2010-03-22T02:42:00.000-07:00

Matthew 13:53-58

Earlier, in Matthew 9, Jesus was actually able to do some miracles in His own town (apparently, Capernaum), but I notice that the reaction by the people was described as "fear" and amazement. He was also made fun of when He healed the "ruler's" daughter. Now, He's in His "hometown". This would have been Nazareth, which was 20 miles or so from Capernaum, which is far enough if your mode of transportation involves slowly wearing out your sandals. Anyway, He's not received very well at all here. I guess the difference is that where you grow up, people tend to see you different. My city is now Saskatoon. People here would see me differently than they would in Thunder Bay. Anyway, that's all beside the point.

In Jesus' home town, it says they took offense at Him. "Who's this man, thinks He's a prophet?" It's hard to tell if His response of "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown" is a lament, or if He's annoyed. But the big deal is the fact that "He did not do many miracles because of their unbelief".

First, it's interesting to think that we can limit God. But there it is right there. He didn't do many miracles because of their unbelief. According to my presuppositions, this gives a glimpse of our free will. Jesus didn't force miracles on people that didn't want them. I never see God as forcing us to do anything (sometimes I think I wish He would). He leaves us to our own devices, but calls us to Himself. Seriously, who wouldn't want Jesus to do a bunch of miracles, anyway? Seems kind of odd looking back on it from here.

Secondly, what are the implications for us? How many blessings have I missed because of my unbelief? I try to soothe my own guilt sometimes by thinking that there's some other reason why God doesn't do some of the things in my life that I would hope He would do. But, maybe it comes down to my unbelief. It scares me to think so, because all I can think to respond is, "Lord, help me with my unbelief". Often, I don't believe. I really don't think God's going to come through. Or not so much that as I'm not often very sure what God wants from me in specific situations, so as a result I'm not sure if He's gonna come through. Either way, my belief feels more like wishful thinking on my part (in those sorts of situations).

(A friend of mine had an interesting thought on this the other day. He said that "faith isn't believing things into being, but rather believing in what God has already promised". Now I'm not sure it's limited to that completely, but he tries to listen to what God wants him to pray about, rather than (always) coming to God with a laundry list of wants.)

The bright side of all of this is to realize that this is one isolated sort of incident in this gospel. The norm was that Jesus was able to do miracles quite readily, and I can't think of an instance where Jesus turned someone aside who came to Him with a request. That makes me feel better. Jesus is ready and willing to come through for us. I'm sure my unbelief plays a factor, but probably in the end, I don't need to stress out about it.

The Parable of the Yeast

2010-03-20T01:14:00.000-07:00

Matthew 13:33

I like this little parable. It's short, and to the point. Jesus doesn't feel the need to engage in a lengthy discourse about what the kingdom is like. It's simple, like some yeast that gets mixed into some dough until it is risen. The parable doesn't explain all of the intricacies of the kingdom, but it's not meant to. But it does say something important.
Why doesn't the kingdom just splat down in one gigantic event and be done with it? Well, it's not like that. It starts out small, but impacts the whole. I look at my own life and the effect the kingdom has had on it. There were just small inklings at first, which have grown to impact my whole person. At times, I've wished the process was faster, but yeast just sort of grows at its own pace.
Jesus may be speaking in parables, but a little story like this says a lot. It doesn't all have to be complicated and in depth. It just goes to show some of the simplicity of God's kingdom.

The Parable of the Weeds

2010-03-16T16:26:00.000-07:00

Matthew 13:24-30

I've been reading through an introduction to philosophy textbook. One of the areas I found interesting was the argument that God can't exist because of the problem of evil. The argument goes that:

1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil.

2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil

3) But evil is not destroyed,

4) Therefore there is no all-good, all-powerful God.

I think that the Parable of the Weeds speaks to this idea. In the parable, there is evil spread into the good that God has made. God won't destroy the bad, because the good might been harmed at the same time. Now, someone trying to argue the point will say, "See, God isn't all-powerful, because it wouldn't matter, He's limited by these circumstances". I suppose he could have had the servants go and pluck out the weeds one by one or something, that may be reading too much into the parable, wanting it to say something that Jesus isn't trying to illustrate (he explains it all at the end of the chapter anyway as being about good and bad people). We can't know His purpose in allowing evil. Evil isn't something in and of itself, anyway, it's always a perversion or privation of something that is itself good, like rust or rot. The above argument assumes that evil has to be disposed of now, but in the parable, evil will get it's day, God is just choosing to wait until the right time. So, evil will be destroyed, because there is an all-good, all powerful God". Jesus isn't getting into the details of why evil exists or how it will be dealt with, He's just trying to tell us that in the end, it will be dealt with.

The Parable of the Sower II

2010-03-15T22:00:00.000-07:00

One thing I forgot about yesterday's post was that maybe I'm reading too much into the parable to begin with. It is about the sower, and not the fields necessarily. The implication is that the sower sows the seed, but really has no impact on the outcome. The seed is the same, and the sower does his job and goes on his way. So, maybe Jesus is speaking more to those who will sow the seeds rather than those who will receive it, and by focusing on the fields I am focusing on the wrong part. I know that we can get way off base if we start trying to explain all the teeny weeny details of a parable, when in reality it's only to illustrate one thing.

Just a thought.

The Parable of the Sower

2010-03-14T22:00:00.000-07:00

Matthew 13:1-23

I've always had trouble with this parable. Not with the understanding of it, obviously, because Jesus spells it out for His disciples at the end. It's more with the implications, I suppose. In the parable, the sower casts seed pretty much everywhere, but only in certain places does it catch. In the rocky soil, it sprouts up but dies with no root. In the thorny, it gets choked out. I think I've always assumed some sort of implication that God has made people the way they are, or more precisely, that not everyone has a fair shake at believing in Him. So, I just happened to be good soil? What about the poor sap who was rocky soil? He never had a chance.

But as I think about it now, maybe I have it backwards. It is a parable after all, it doesn't necessarily describe the way things really are (let me explain that). Maybe it's not that everyone doesn't have a fair chance at it, it's just that in the end, certain outcomes develop. Some people believe readily, and then fall away. I've seen it. Some people believe and life's worries choke out that belief. I've seen that too. In the end, the parable is meant to explain what is going on, as an illustration, it's not saying that it's a predetermined outcome.

The other part I have trouble with is what Jesus says about speaking in parables. It doesn't seem fair that the "secrets of the kingdom" aren't available to everyone. Is Jesus hiding things from some people? I think the part that explains it, though, the quotation in verse 15, "the heart of this people has become dull". It's not that Jesus is trying to hide things, it's that people won't hear it because their hearts have become dull.

Much of my reading lately has been in philosophy and evolutionary subject matter. No amount of content, explanations or illustrations serve to convince one side or the other. Atheist has a foundation of presuppositions that the rest is built upon, just as much as I do. We can hear the same facts and information, but come to different conclusions. So I think what is happening is that as Jesus tells these parables, there are some people who will get them and there are those who won't, but He's not intentionally trying to keep anyone from being able to understand him.

I guess in the end, I have to admit that I'm trying to reconcile these passages to my presuppositions of free will and our response to God's grace. If I held a Calvinist view I think I'd have different conclusions (but then again I'd have different problems I would have to reconcile, too).

I'm Highly Nutritious Here (In the Belly of a Whale)

2010-03-12T01:00:00.000-08:00

Matthew 12:38-42

I've often wondered about Jonah. In popular culture, he spent three days and three nights doing something in that big fish. I don't imagine it was very comfortable. But it raises a number of questions. How did he breath? How did he not get at least partially digested in the fishes belly? Of course, there is something supernatural going on here.

Then there is Jesus' comment that just like Jonah spent that time in the fish, so He would spend three days and nights in the belly of the earth. I wonder if in reality, Jonah was dead for those three days. It would make sense in relation to what Jesus endured, because He was dead for those three days.

I read through Jonah. It doesn't really say one way or the other if Jonah was alive. There is his prayer in Jonah 2, but that wouldn't have taken more than a minute to fire off. In some ways, it would have made more sense for Jonah to have died, and then for God to resurrect him once the fish spit him out. That would solve the breathing thing (but not the digestion, obviously).

Another thing I notice, is how much Jonah actually resembles the Pharisees. He's pretty ticked off when He sees the mercy God extends to Nineveh, just like the Pharisees are when they see how Jesus treats the sinners, lame, blind, tax collectors, etc. And possible there is another parallel. God scolds Jonah for his reaction to withering of the plant, that he cared more for that than the people of Nineveh. The plant is somewhat like the law. It was a shelter for the people, but now that God was sort of causing it to whither, the Pharisees cared more about that than the blessings the people were receiving. I know the analogy may be a bit of a stretch, but I pretty much think of these things as I write them down.

It's Bad for "Business"

2010-03-11T01:00:00.000-08:00

Matthew 12:1-14

Jesus here emphasizes people over the law. The prohibitions against working on the Sabbath didn't trump the need for people to eat, or to be restored. The Pharisees, of course, stand up for the law. How often do people stand up for ideologies or "entities", rather than other people?

I was thinking about "the economy", and how we put so much emphasis on "it", like it's actually something we should "care" for. Or businesses. How many business decisions are made based on what's good for "the company" rather than the people who work at it, or buy the products, or are affected by the process of manufacturing those products, or any host of other people. Companies and "the economy" don't matter when it comes down to it, other than the fact that they impact the lives of people. In and of themselves, they don't matter. I think it's the same with "the law". It's about people. That's why it made total sense for Jesus to over rule the traditionally held prohibitions about the Sabbath, because keeping the Sabbath was about making things better for us. That's why the Pharisees missed the boat. They treated the law as an entity in and of itself that needed to be heeded and protected. You see it over and over again in how they react to different situations. And you see over and over again how Jesus sees things fundamentally different, putting people first.

The Yokes on You

2010-03-10T01:40:00.000-08:00

Matthew 11:28-30

This is another one of those instances where a little context helps. When Jesus talks about a yoke, the image of the yoke that connects two farm animals comes to mind. It's a good analogy of how Jesus comes along side of us and we work with Him. But it has a bigger meaning that you miss if you leave it there. Apparently, the "yoke" of a Rabbi was his set of teachings that his disciples would follow. The invitation here is for those who are burdened under the teachings of the current rabbis (the experts of the law) to switch to the "yoke" of Jesus. His yoke is not burdensome like the ones people are currently under.

For me, this is a different picture. This is more in line with being a disciple of Jesus. It's not about Jesus coming alongside us so much, as it is us following Him. There's nothing wrong with seeing it one way or the other, I just think the second way is what Jesus was really getting at.

It's interesting how the same statement can be taken in such different ways depending on the context with which we understand it.

A Wonderful Life

2010-03-09T00:49:00.000-08:00

Matthew 11

I wonder what John felt. He wasn't your ordinary guy. Locusts and honey. Strange clothes. I suppose he wasn't alone though... he had disciples. I imagine he still felt sort of alone though. He bore a lot on his shoulders. He stuck out like a sore thumb, which is never easy.

I often hear about how God has a great plan for our lives. Unfortunately, "great plan" is somewhat ambiguous. He had a great plan for John. He got to be the one who proclaimed the coming of Jesus. He preached the coming of the kingdom. He also got imprisoned. Perhaps in prison he lost some of his resolve. I mean really, was this his lot? Is this what God had planned for him? He sent his disciples to Jesus, seemingly to make sure that he wasn't in prison for no reason. Did he want to know that his own sacrifice was worth it? Jesus lets him know that indeed, He is the Messiah, because all the signs are there. He healed the sick, blind, lame, etc. and preached the good news to the poor.

(On a bit of a side note, it seems more and more that is what Jesus was about. In Matthew 9:35, it says He went to villages "teaching in the synagogues". We hear that He did that, but not the substance of what He taught. It seems that the important part wasn't what He was teaching (although that was important), it was what He was doing. His ministry was about showing that He was Messiah, not telling us how to live our lives, although that was a part of it.)

So what awaited John? He got his response from Jesus, and I'm sure it comforted him a bit to be reassured that his suffering wasn't in vain. But we know how the story ends later... with his head on a platter. Seems like a great life, eh. It was and it wasn't. It wasn't a great life by our modern consumer culture standards, but despite the hardship, I think John would have felt his life to be very successful, because He did what really mattered. And Jesus was quick to point out John's importance, saying that no one in history was greater than he. High praise. I'd take that any day over a mansion in Malibu.

But it's not easy. Perhaps great never is easy. Great is extraordinary. Average is easy.

Persecution

2010-03-05T00:32:00.000-08:00

Matthew 10

The kind of stuff Jesus describes in Matthew 10 doesn't really sound very appealing, does it? Do I really want to pick up a cross and follow Jesus to my death? Do I really look forward to being persecuted for my faith? I love my kids... what is the real implication of loving Jesus more than them?

In our day, and in our culture, we do find persecution, but it's different. Well, the persecution is the same, just not the reasons. The first immediate persecutors of our faith were the Jewish religious establishment. Jesus' teachings at times seemed like blasphemy to them, and ultimately, they were the ones who had him crucified. From there, a good amount of persecution came from the Romans, because the Christians were a threat to the peace and stability of the empire. I think nowadays, the most prominent persecutors are the increasingly vocal atheist 2.0 types. There's that thing down in Texas where a group of atheists are offering to give you porn if you turn in your bible or other religious text (link). Or the new study that says atheists are smarter than religious people (link). I would say that study is a little dubious, in that the difference probably isn't statistically important, and if you look at the history of the IQ test, it's sort of skewed towards certain demographics. Someone like Richard Dawkins might annoy me with his pompous, dogmatic statements about my apparent stupidity, but he's not going to boil my children or anything like that.

Maybe this chapter doesn't feel so important because there is no immediate danger to me. At most, persecution makes me uncomfortable, but in general I can avoid it if I choose. Others are not so lucky. The early church, for example. The apostles all ran into trouble, and the church in Jerusalem was scattered. In some parts of the world today, people still face personal danger, or worse, for following Jesus. I knew a formerly Muslim girl from Tajikistan whose father was going to kill her for becoming a Christian. For her, there might be something comforting in these passages. Jesus knows what His people will face, He tells them right up front. It's good that He does. Part of His trustworthiness is that He's up front about the difficult things. And ultimately, He went through much worse than any of us will have to face, so He doesn't expect anything from any of us that He wasn't willing to endure Himself.

Ask, Seek, Knock... Repeat

2010-03-04T03:23:00.000-08:00

I was listening to Rob Bell from Mars Hill Church the other night. Since I've been working so many nights and weekends, I haven't gotten to church much lately. I went through the list of recent sermons, and settled on titled "Ask, Seek and Knock", since I recently read through that and I wanted to see what Rob had to say. It was quite good. I usually only can get into a sermon if it's saying something that I don't already know or is looking at something from a different angle I hadn't thought of. He was saying that the ask, seek, knock part was not so much about us and God as it was about us and other people. He sees that whole section as being about us and other people. Chapter 7 starts out with "don't judge", continues on with "don't cast your pearls before pigs" (which he sees as being about trying to manipulate people, if I caught that correctly) and then moves to the ask, seek, knock section. He talked about us needing to ask others for help and not be so independent.

His points were good, but I wondered if they weren't a little out of context. I figured that passage was about God, not other people. But he had an answer for that. He said that in an "Eastern" (or more precisely Middle Eastern) mindset, it wouldn't have to be one or the other, it could be about both God and other people. Makes sense. What it points out to me, though, is that if we try to hard to universalize the text, it loses its intended meaning. Again, it seems that we need to put ourselves into the context to which Jesus spoke.

Now, I might get into trouble by saying this, but maybe this idea that "God gave us the Bible" isn't entirely correct. Before you fire up those torches, let me explain. The stories and teachings of the Bible take place in a certain time and space. Even the things that God says directly are spoken into specific situations. The text isn't universally understandable the way it is. There is a lot of context that has to go along with it. There is so much that doesn't make complete sense without the proper context. Sure, we can get the gist of it, but it's much fuller in its context. If we have this mindset that God gave us this book, as a book, we will just take that book at face value and try to figure it out. I think, though, if we have the mindset that God has spoken and acted in history, and we have some of that preserved for us in this wonderful collection of works put together as "the Bible", then we'll be more aware to put it into its proper context.

I always think about the "salt and light" passage. I don't think I've ever heard a completely intellectually satisfying explanation as to what Jesus is talking about. Maybe it's because there's some bit of context that is missing to me, some cultural relevance that is as yet undiscovered in a cave in Israel.

So, that's just me thinking out loud. If you haven't noticed, I get really excited about the context of the Bible. It's only been in the last few years that I've consciously tried to read it as though I am that Hebrew being spoken too, or that paralytic who has been healed. I've seen so much more in this way than I ever did just reading those stories as stories.

The Hour

2010-03-04T03:10:00.000-08:00

Somehow or another, the other night I ended up watching The Hour with George Stombopololopolous. I like George, but I don't often get to watch it. It just so happens that he had Billy Graham's daughter on the show, Anne Graham Lotz. I'd never really heard of her before, and I was a bit surprised that she was there. Her intro was actually kind of cool, in that it sort of sounded more like something her people would have put together, rather than his. George seemed a little unsure of himself during the interview. There was quite a bit of nervous energy, and his questions seemed a little basic, at least not the depth you'd expect him to ask of other guests. And he gave her a lot of latitude to preach, and I think she did a fairly good job. I don't think that the people who normally watch that show are in her usual demographic, but for the most part, I think she was able to get a decent salvation message across, one that probably would have made sense to some degree for the average person unfamiliar. So, I applaud George for being respectful with his guest. I'm sure the temptation was there to ask her something awkward are put down what she was trying to say. I would've liked him to ask her some questions that he actually wanted to have answered. That would have made the segment much more interesting.

Where is Jesus?

2010-03-03T02:14:00.000-08:00

Matthew 9:9-13

I have a confession to make. Maybe your experience is like mine, maybe not... but I rarely enjoy going to church. I don't think it's the church's fault, I know that quite a few people like going to this particular church. I don't. But that's been true of most of my church experience wherever I've been. Boring, mostly irrelevant sermons, lifeless music, nice people you don't connect with. It's not always like that, but way more often than not. It feels, many times, like God's not there.

Now, I know that's not true. Jesus promised that where 2 or more are gathered in His Name, there He would be also. But I read this story, and I wonder if we've got it wrong.

Here, the Pharisees get all grumpy because Jesus is hanging out with the tax collectors and sinners. I assume there's some jealousy there; they want Him to being hanging out with them. But Jesus doesn't hang out with their type, He hangs out with the sinners.

We expect Jesus to hang out with us. We expect Jesus to be at our services, our prayer meetings, etc. But that's not where He hung out, why should we expect Him to do so now? He hung out with the sinners, so maybe that's where we'll find Him now. I know in my own life, I've felt much more in tune with God being involved in some sort of ministry. Whether it's street ministry, evangelism, sitting and sharing with someone (not that I do these things often... or well... or am anything less than scared to death of those things), I think I've experienced God better in these venues than I ever have in church.

I know it's not all cut and dry. There's not a formula involved, but it's interesting to stop and think about my experiences and realize what the trends have been. I heard of a church in the area that skips the traditional Sunday Service once a month and does some sort of service project out in the community. That sounds like a step in the right direction. I'm not the sort of person who could spearhead something like that, but I'm sure I could get into the groove of being involved.

Anyway, those are just some random thoughts on the subject at 4:30 in the morning...

So... Which One is Easier?

2010-02-28T20:37:00.000-08:00

Matthew 9:1-8

I think what sticks out to me in this section is Jesus' response to the "experts in the law. After Jesus tells the man that his sins are forgiven, the experts get all grumpy and "He can't do that!" about it. Jesus tells them, “Why do you respond with evil in your hearts?". Why is it that "religion" so often makes people respond in this way? There are so many instances where this is the case, and it ends up giving "us" a bad name. I know too many people who have been burned by us church people taking the negative way instead of the positive. A long time ago I knew a guy who said that he wanted to speak life into other people. I've tried to take that to heart myself. I'm not always successful, but I strive to be a speaker of life, and not one of negatives (although, I certainly feel the twinge of conviction as I write that).

The "experts" couldn't have been happy for the guy? Instead they have to be negative right away? Granted, what Jesus was saying would have been quite unusual, but I'm sure there could have been some sort of positive response.

I wonder what He meant by asking which was easier? It seems that for the people He was talking to, it really wouldn't have mattered which one was easier. It's like asking if it's easier to scratch your left elbow with your left hand or your right elbow with your right hand. One might be "easier", but both are impossible. And that's how people would have categorized the forgiveness of sins and healing. Normal people couldn't do that sort of stuff. That's probably why people were so amazed (afraid, is what it says). Here's a man who could do the impossible. They didn't have to understand completely, but they knew for certain that that power came from God.

What are you doing here?

2010-02-26T22:37:00.000-08:00

Matthew 8:28-34

I wonder what Jesus was doing there in the first place? The place this story occurs is in Gentile territory. Jesus didn't intend to do any ministry among the gentiles. Although, there are a few instances where He does interact with them, He didn't seek them out. So why is He there? I get the feeling that He was trying to get away from things for a while. It makes sense really. Everyday, people are pestering him for healings and such. All that teaching and miracles. Sometimes a guy just needs to get away. Where better to go than a place where they don't really know who you are and probably don't care that much.

It always seems kind of odd to project these sort of things onto Jesus. I think somewhere inside, I see Jesus as robotic, going about His business without the frustrations and tiredness I think I would experience. But these stories, they help to fill out the reality of who Jesus is. These are the kinds of things you wouldn't necessarily be looking for, but would expect to find in an account of someone's life. I'm glad these details are included. Obviously, the writer intended the casting out of the demons to be the focus, but the surrounding story adds some significant light on Jesus as well.

I was thinking about what Jesus would have meant to those gentiles in that area. Jesus does have universal appeal, to be sure. The centurion and others came to Jesus because of the miracles He could do. But much of what Jesus was about, being the Messiah, wouldn't have mattered to gentiles. "What's a Messiah?" might have been their response. Jesus makes much more sense in the context of the Jewish people. God had prepared the context ahead of time for the Jews to understand what He was about and why He was there and what He was to accomplish. It just emphasizes the important of context on how we see the world and understand it. It is our worldview that shapes the way we see things. The gentiles wouldn't have understood what Jesus was all about in the same way that the Jews would have. He was (is) no less important to them, but their understanding of Him would have been different.

Following

2010-02-22T10:23:00.000-08:00

Matthew 8:18-22

This "expert in the law" wants to follow Jesus, but Jesus wants to curb his enthusiasm a bit. Why? I suppose Jesus never seems that desperate to recruit followers. Other than when He picks out the twelve, He never seems to be trying to add to His entourage. Jesus usually doesn't give just random responses, so what is it about His statement that is directed specifically to this man?

I will totally assume all of this, but perhaps this guy was expecting to benefit from following Jesus. It's reasonable to think that way. Usually, it could be a good idea to associate oneself with the right people (i.e. Jesus) because there would be some sort of worldly benefit. More often than not, there's some sort of money involved with these guys. But, Jesus isn't like the others, and so He warns that man that he'll be worse off if he decides to follow Jesus (at least in a worldly sense). You never find Jesus trying to trick anyone into following Him.

The second guy tells Jesus he wants to bury his father before coming to follow Him. This time, Jesus tells him not to bother and to come follow Him now.

As I stop to think about it, I think these two stories have something in common. Jesus makes them both stop and think. Both will have to sacrifice something. The first will have to sacrifice the comforts he has become accustomed to as a important person in the community (expert in the law). The second will have the sacrifice related to not honouring his father (which was a pretty big disgrace as I understand it).

He doesn't emphasize the benefits. I pass church signs all the time that announce the benefits of following Jesus. Usually, He doesn't.

I started to follow Jesus later in life. I didn't know what I was getting myself into (although I wouldn't ever say it was a mistake). I don't remember thinking it would vastly improve my life, nor was I aware of the sacrifices I'd have to make. It's just somewhat comforting to me, for whatever reason, to think that as Jesus interacted with people, He wanted to make sure they had a better understanding of the implications of their decision to follow Him.

Healing

2010-02-21T08:37:00.000-08:00

Matthew 8:1-17

Here are three healings. First off, is the leper, then the centurion's servant, then Peter's mother-in-law. I always wonder what we're supposed to take away from these stories of Jesus healing people. Does that mean He will heal us?

I was thinking about it a bit today, and I don't think that's it at all. It's not that Jesus will heal us, it's that He can. That's it.

You see, it looks like these particular healings are pointed out to illustrate that Jesus can heal. The leper comes to Jesus, in an act of faith, for his own healing. As a leper, he really has no hope of being restored to "normal" in any other fashion. He has no hope beyond the chance that maybe Jesus can heal him. And make no doubts, he believes that Jesus can heal him, but whether He will or not, that is the question (or more correctly, whether He is willing).

The centurion comes on behalf of his servant, so it not the servant himself who is showing faith, but someone on his behalf. Jesus makes a big deal of the faith shown by the centurion. It would be easy to make too big a deal of that fact if it were not bookended by the stories around it.

Peter's mother-in-law was lying down sick with a fever. It is Jesus who initiates this healing.

These three stories are very different. In one, there is a display of faith, in the next a greater display of faith, but on behalf of someone else (who may, or may not have shared that faith) and finally someone who shows no faith at all, and really never asked to be healed in the first place.

The leper likely wouldn't have ever gotten better. Maybe the servant would have, but the fact that the centurion went out of his way to get Jesus to help says to me that it must have been pretty serious. Peter's mother-in-law probably would have gotten better at least let's say so.

So, there's no formula. There's nothing to point at and say, "aha!" that's how to be healed. I think this is deliberate. We can't come away thinking that we know how to be healed, all we can see is that Jesus is able to heal. And that's what we need to see.

With our modern medicine, I think we've lost touch of just how scary sicknesses can be. You never knew which one would finally do you in. You could only hope for the best, and pray you didn't get sick in the first place. That fact that Jesus can heal is earth shattering. It's important in another way as well. The section ends by explaining that His display of healing fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah about the Messiah. Now it's no good to say things about the Messiah that could apply to anyone. If Isaiah had said something like, "you will know him because he walks on two legs and eats fish" well, that wouldn't have helped very much, would it? So, because Jesus healed these people, he did something that was uncommon enough to identify Him as the Messiah. He is identified as the Messiah, and not just that, He is someone who can heal. These are two powerful things presented here, world changing things. That, I believe is what we are meant to take away from this section.

Mmm... Pineapple is a good fruit

2010-02-20T10:54:00.000-08:00

Matthew 7:15-23

I find a strange sort of paradox in this section. In fact all through chapters 5-7. There are instances where it seems that what we do isn't really that important, and there are times when it seems that it really is important. So which is it?

At first, Jesus is saying, "you can tell a tree by it's fruit". I take this to mean that if you see someone doing the sorts of things that we are supposed to do, then that makes them a good tree. And bad trees are the ones that do bad things, obviously. So I would imagine that killing, lying, cheating, etc. are bad things, so those are the bad trees. Probably then, prophesying and demon casting-outing would be good fruits, so those are the good trees. Wait... what's that you say, Jesus?

"Not everyone who casts out demons or prophesys in my name will enter the kingdom of heaven". Say what? In fact, Jesus tells them to take hike and calls them "lawbreakers". Goodness.

So, what are we supposed to think. In the first place, He's telling us that we can recognize a good tree by its good fruit. But then right away, He says that not all of those with the good fruit will enter the kingdom. Where does that leave us?

I can't reconcile these. He's goes from telling us that a good tree will bear good fruit, then He goes on to say that not everybody who bears this good fruit will enter the kingdom. So, at best, He's not really helped us out at all. Unless I've overlooked one key assumption...

Jesus never tells us what "good fruit" is. He uses the term but never defines it. In fact, Jesus doesn't go into much detail at all during this sermon on the mount about the do's and don't's. He never says that prophecy and casting out demons were good fruit. That's my assumption.

Maybe the point that Jesus is subtly making is just that; those aren't the good fruits to be looking for. Jesus doesn't spend much time outlining our religious duties during this sermon. He does, however, tell us the kind of people we should be. Generous, honest, longing for righteousness (even perhaps if we don't attain it), peacemakers, etc. I know many of us see the "spiritual" things as the stuff we are supposed to strive for. But maybe Jesus is subtly trying, throughout this whole sermon, to bring our attention back to earth, to the place we live and run into each other.

Wadis you talking about, Jesus?

2010-02-19T23:00:00.000-08:00

Looking at Matthew 7:24-27, I think this is another instance of Jesus pointing out the obvious. Whoever hears my words and does them is wise, like a builder who builds on stone. Whoever hears them and doesn't obey them is an idiot, like the guy who builds his house on the sand.

One of the things about scripture that I both equally like and hate is that it is so fixed in the history where it originated. I like it, because it rings so true. There's a grittiness, a realness about it. The stories make sense in their context. What I hate about it is that I'm not a part of that context. I don't immediately identify with the situations. I don't put what people are saying into their proper contexts. I miss so much, just because I am separated by so much time and space from those situations.

Jesus is talking to people in the middle east. It is a place of rocks and sand and homes that look infinitely different than the one I live in. When Jesus talks to them, they immediately have the context to put this story into. I do not. However, I think through some time and research, I've come to a reasonable conclusion at what is happening in this story.

There are, in Israel, what are called wadis. Essentially, these are flood plains. Floods are never predictable, nor are they consistent. It can be years in between. But I get the feeling, that if you grew up in that part of the world, you'd be familiar with them, and you'd know the areas that would generally be flooded.

Jesus says the wise man built his house on the rock. I'm going to assume that he built it there because he is wise, not that he is wise because he built it there. If you know the area, you know what can happen, you know where not to build a house. The wise man looks for a good spot, builds a good house, and when the rain comes, the house stands.

I'm going to assume that the foolish man built his house on the sand because he is foolish, not that he is foolish because he built it there. If you know the area, you know what can happen, you know where not to build a house. The foolish man either doesn't heed the warnings, doesn't do his research, or just plain doesn't care and figures it's no big deal or that he'll get away with it.

In both cases, they know better. One does something about it. One doesn't. Jesus is saying that once we've heard His words, then we know better. We are either wise (for obeying) or foolish (for not), but we cannot claim ignorance any longer.

Understanding a little about the people Jesus is talking to, and the area they live in helps me immensely. I see Him speaking into the lives of those people. Sometimes, I think we expect Jesus' words to come off as these universal words of wisdom that we should all instinctively get right away. But that's not the case. He's not talking to me. He's talking to them. And by understanding what He is trying to say to them, and what they are taking away from it, that helps me to understand how I can apply it to me.

One of the reasons I like this section of scripture is because I heard a story once of how it this story was misunderstood by a tribal people in (if I remember correctly) Papua New Guinea. They couldn't make any sense of it, because what Jesus was saying was totally backwards. Only fools build their homes on the rocks. The good place to build a home is on the sand. That's because those tribal people built these homes with long pole stilts sunk into the sand as a base. A house built on rocks could not have those poles sunk into the sand for stability. That house would topple over with the first storm that came by. These people would never have been able to figure this story out if the background context wasn't given to them alongside of the scripture.

Too often I hear, "all we need is the scripture", but that's the case. We need the history, the customs, the atlases. Without these things, we can't fully appreciate what's going on. Yes, we can get by without them, but the scriptures are so much fuller if we understand them in their proper context.

Lent already?

2010-02-18T18:44:00.000-08:00

Well, well. Lent again. I don't think this year I'll be committing to reading and posting everyday. But, I am going to try to continue at least a few times a week. That should be doable.

Matthew 7

Sometimes I wonder if Jesus is making promises, or just stating the obvious. Like in the beatitudes, "blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted". Really, no one else needs to be comforted, except those who mourn. Or like in Matthew 7:7-12. Knock and the door will be opened. Is that a promise, or just an observation? The one who seeks, finds. The one who asks is given.

It seems that in the overall context, Jesus is doing more than sharing His observations, yet I don't think they are necessarily promises either. I want them to be. I want to ask and have my desires fulfilled. It never happens that way.

So are they not promises simply because it doesn't work that way for me? Maybe they are supposed to be taken that way, but there's some sort of break down, like I'm not faithful enough or something. I wouldn't claim to be a charismatic type. I've never healed anyone, spoken in tongues, had a word of prophecy, etc. But I can't dismiss those things just because I haven't experienced them. I know too many people who have, I've witnessed them first hand, and I've had some occur for my own benefit. The words of scripture are always interpreted through our own experiences.

The fear, I think, for me is that these are supposed to be promises, but somehow God isn't able to deliver. These words would be worse than meaningless if that were the case. I don't think that's the case. It doesn't have to be a promise to be true. The one who seeks, finds. It's not a promise, but it is true. Don't expect to find anything if you don't look, but there's not necessarily a guarantee attached to it.

More thoughts

2010-02-14T23:30:00.000-08:00

The other day, I was talking with some old friends, and somehow, we got to talking about this conservative Christian school in the states called Bob Jones University. Apparently, it wasn't until 2000 that they allowed inter-racial relationships on campus. The statement from the U's president was something along the lines of, "our rules were indicative of our culture, and not the scriptures". It got me to thinking... there really isn't any theology that isn't, at least in part, a product of culture.

That university's rules are very conservative, likely coming out of an early 20th century protestant holiness/puritan sort of culture (that's a guess, I haven't done any background on it). And the whole interracial thing was cultural, too. The fact that it was even an issue in the first place really was born out of the culture of that time and place.

I did a study years ago about Calvinism vs Arminianism. Both sides were developed and defended by godly, earnest believers, who came to opposing positions, given the same materials to work from. So who's right? It made me think that there really is no "biblical theology" per se. Before you throw stones, what I mean is that there is no "objective theology", no single theology that we can nail down as being the one God intended. Not that there isn't a Truth out there, (which I believe there is) just that we are unable to know truly what it is. There is no "objective" anything because you always have to take into account the lens through which we see the world. The Bible always says the same thing to everybody. But we come to vastly different conclusions (interpretations) because of our presuppositions (the way we see the world). If our culture is one of racism, and we have somehow bought into that unwittingly or otherwise, then our theology will reflect that.

I think more than anything, our current culture is one of consumerism, and our issues reflect that. You have prosperity preachers, which call on us to consume, and then on the other end, there are those who would advocate for the environment, etc. and the reduction of consumption. Both come to the same Bible and come away with opposing views, but they are equally based in the culture we are a part of; consumerism and the reactionary anti-consumerism. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for one or the other here, just pointing out that they are a product of our culture.

I got to thinking that maybe this is the sort of thing Jesus is talking about in Matthew 7:1-5, about the beam in your own eye and the spec in your brother's. Perhaps it's not primarily about sins, as I have usually thought, but it's about our "theologies". It's easy to point out the faults in someone else's theology, but it's not always easy to see the holes in our own theology, or how our own theology has been shaped by our culture and experiences. Instead of pointing out the faults of someone else's Calvinism, we should first understand the implications of our own Arminianism, etc. etc. Our first priority, then is getting our own house in order, not to try to sweep someone else's.

I wonder; if God intended for us to have a single, cohesive theology, why didn't He go to greater lengths to ensure that we would? Maybe He intended to give us some wiggle room. Maybe He doesn't want a homogeneous mass. Perhaps, being the body of Christ doesn't just mean having different jobs to do, but also different ways of understanding what it is that God wants from us.

Could it be that there is room for the prosperity-gospel-sports-car-salesmen and the tree-hugging-vegans? The Anglicans and the Pentecostals, and (gasp) the Roman Catholics?

I admit that it sounds odd to say that God would want a variety of doctrines. Obviously, there is only one Truth, and you'd think He'd want us to know it. But perhaps He has a higher purpose in it all.

Anyway, I'm just putting it out there. If you think I'm out to lunch, let me know. If you've read this far, it must be of some interest to you.

Dress like flowers and eat like birds

2010-02-06T15:54:00.000-08:00

Matthew 6:19-34

I've always flipped back and forth with this one. I get stressed out about how we're going to pay for things, yet in the back of my mind, I always believe it will be OK. I step out in faith, believing that God will provide, yet I get this nagging feeling that I shouldn't be doing or buying whatever it is. One thing I can say pretty certainly is that God has always come through. There's been lots of times where God has provided things I thought were impossible. When I went to Paraguay, I didn't have enough to buy health insurance. I figured I'd somehow get some more money. Didn't happen. But when I called the place, they had changed their rates, and the amount of money I had was pretty much exactly how much I needed.

After I was fired from our church in Vancouver, we attended a pentecostal church in Langley for a while. One day, a random guy came up to us after service and told me that God wanted me to not worry about how I was going to provide for my family. Pretty pertinent information at the time, I'd say. For the first few years here in Saskatoon, I didn't make very much money, but it's always been enough. As our rent would go up, God would provide a new job or what have you. When we decided we wanted our own house, bam, everything came together in ways I never would have imagined.

All this to say that God has again and again proven Himself faithful, but yet, I still doubt. I had this idea of going and helping in Haiti with the relief efforts there. But my first thought is, "how am I going to come up with $2500 in two weeks?" I guess that's not entirely up to me. If God wants me to help out there, He'll make it happen.

One a side note, Jesus tells us to store up treasures in heaven, but He doesn't feel the need to elaborate on what exactly those treasures are. How does one store up these treasures, and what exactly are they? We usually equate them with good deeds; helping others, preaching the gospel and such. I wonder if it has always been understood this way. What about a thousand years ago? How did catholic monks see it, or the average coptic joe? Are there different understandings, or do we all more or less see it the same way. Or did I miss something really obvious?

Passing thought

2010-02-04T10:47:00.001-08:00

I wanted to write this down while it was still in my mind. I was driving home from work the other night, and I happened to have local Christian radio station on. I do that once in a while just in case they have a good song playing (which, I suppose, happens often enough that I keep trying it). There was some sort of CCM girl group on, and one of the lines was something like, "Lord, you love me, even though I don't deserve it."

I thought to myself how irrelevant of a statement that is. It's like saying, "Lord, you love me, enough though I'm not purple".

What I mean to say is that God does not love in the way we do. He is love, and it comes from Him. We, on the other hand, tend to love only those things which are "love-able" to us. Some may have broader borders as to what constitutes "love-able", but we are all the same.

In God's case, the object has no bearing on whether He loves it, because He is love... that's what He's made of and that's what He does.

It reminds me of my youth pastor from when I a teen. He said, he'd give anyone $100 if they could ask him a bible question he couldn't answer (and he admitted there was one). No one ever stumped him, as far as I know. He'd always admit at the end that the one question he couldn't answer was, "why does God love us". It was until years later, when I was listening to a tape (yes, a tape) of Brennan Manning, and he explained that God loves us not because of who we are, that's irrelevant. It's because of who He is... Love.

So, next time you run into one of those songs of "I don't deserve it", now you know that it doesn't matter.

Good/Bad

2010-02-03T10:53:00.000-08:00

Matthew 6:1-18

Here Jesus is talking about some outward positives. They are in direct contrast to the outward negatives (murder, divorce, etc.) that He was talking about earlier. "Don't be fooled by what you see", is what He's getting at. You can't always tells what's going on inside a person by what you see on the outside.

It's interesting, though, that He would have us hide our good deeds. No, that's not right... He's having us hide our "religious" deeds. He mentions in another place not to hide our "good" deeds. It's easy to fake it, if you're resting on your religious deeds. But if you remove those, how are people supposed to know that you are a good person?

Jesus doesn't just pick on the things we do bad, but also the things we do good. It's not that these religious things don't have merit. He stills tells us to do them. But by doing them in private, we can be sure our motives are right. Again it comes back to what's inside. Is it envy, hate or religious pride? They have completely different outer manifestations, but Jesus lumps them together as coming from the same place. Our actions can be good or bad, that's really irrelevant in the end. It is the inside condition, where those actions come from that matters.

An "I" for a "I"

2010-02-02T10:05:00.000-08:00

Matthew 5:38-48

I think an "eye for an eye" was meant to limit the escalation of retaliation. If someone poked out my eye, I imagine I'd want to inflict a lot more damage than just return the favour. Jesus entends that notion to it's logic conclusion. Our concern should be for the other person, and not for ourselves. Our response to what is inflicted upon us can change the situation completely.
Interestingly, though, Jesus doesn't say, "if someone pokes out your eye, turn to him the other". Being struck in the cheek, or taken advantage of are lesser offences than having your eye poked out. (Yes, I realize that eye for an eye, doesn't necessarily mean just that, it's just the concept of it). But, Jesus goes on to expand that we should love our enemies, and those who persecute us. This is the culmination, the crux, of what Jesus has been expounding here.
To me, it sounds unrealistic. But I've heard too many stories of the power of forgiveness in the lives of those who have wronged others. I heard of a lady in Rwanda, whose son had been killed during the violence there. She later "adopted" the young man who had killed her son, showing him forgiveness, but even going above and beyond. God did an amazing thing in the lives of these two people, because she chose to obey these words of Jesus.
May we find that same faithfulness in us when the occassion arises.

Inside Out

2010-01-31T11:51:00.000-08:00

Matthew 5:27-37

I look at these four acts, murder, adultery, divorce and oaths, as outward expressions of something that is going on inside. Murder and adultery are expressions of something that come from the inside, preceded by some sort of mental decision. They could be spontaneous in some cases, I suppose. Divorce, on the other hand, I think would be the result of a longer period of time of smaller decisions (in most cases, anyway). All three of these are negative actions.

But what's wrong with an oath? I think it's because that an oath is sort of set up outside of oneself to impact one's own behaviour. I make an oath, and now I am bound by the oath. Instead, I think what Jesus wants is for us to be the kind of people that do what we're supposed to without the need for outside influences.

Again, I think it's not the doing that is at issue, it is the being.