1 Peter 3:13-22

13 Who can really hurt you if you are dedicated to doing good?

14 If you’re derided for your faithfulness to the covenant,
you’re blessed.
Don’t fear your opponents;
don’t be intimidated.

15 But revere in your hearts the Messiah as the Holy Lord.
Always be prepared to explain your hope
to anyone who asks you about it,
but do it with tenderness and respect,

16 keeping a clear conscience,
so that, when you are mistreated,
those who malign your Messiah-led faithfulness may be ashamed.

17 God’s will is:
It is better to suffer for doing what’s right
than it is to ever do evil.

18 For the Messiah also suffered once for sins –
the one faithful to the covenant
for those unfaithful to the covenant.

In order to bring us to God,
he was executed in the flesh but made alive again in the Spirit,

19 by which he went and proclaimed to the imprisoned spirits

20 who in long ago times
did not obey the God who waited patiently while Noah built the ark,
in which a few people – eight – were saved through water.

21 Baptism is an echo of this,
and now saves us
not by washing dirt from the body
but as a promise of God’s faithfulness
through the resurrection of the Messiah Jesus,

22 who has gone into heaven
and is at the right hand of God,
with angels, authorities, and powers
under his command.

- translated by KHM, 5/17/2017

Best Jesus Movies

1 - Jesus of Nazareth (1977)

2 - Ben Hur (1959)

3 - The Passion of the Christ (2004)

4 - The Miracle Maker (2000)

5 - King of Kings (1961)

6 - The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965)

7 - The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)

8 - Jesus (2000)

9 - Son of God (2014)

10 - Son of Man (1969)

The Cost of Proclaiming the Gospel

A reminder that Jesus and his gospel are offensive even to many religious people:

"Jesus,
filled with the power of the Spirit,
returned to Galilee,
and a report about him spread through all the surrounding country.

He began to teach
in their synagogues
and was praised by everyone.

When he came to Nazareth,
where he had been brought up,
he went to the synagogue
on the sabbath day,
as was his custom.
He stood up to read,
and the scroll of
the prophet Isaiah
was given to him.
He unrolled the scroll
and found the place
where it was written:

'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.'

And he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down.
The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him.
Then he began to say to them,
'Today, in your hearing, this scripture is fulfilled.'

All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words
that came from his mouth.
They said, 'Is not this Joseph's son?'

He said to them,
'Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb:
Doctor, cure yourself!
And you will say,
Do here also in your hometown
the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.'

And he said, 'Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet's hometown.
But the truth is,
there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah,
when the heaven was shut up three years and six months,
and there was a severe famine over all the land;
yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon.
There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha,
and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.'

When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with rage.
They got up, drove him out of the town,
and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built,
so that they might hurl him off the cliff.
But he passed through the midst of them and went on his way."

- Luke 4:14-30 (NRSV, adapt)

Easter 2011

"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

"There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

"The angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: "He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him." Now I have told you.'

"So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. 'Greetings,' he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, 'Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.'"

(Matthew 28:1-10, NIV 2011)

Palm Sunday 2011

"A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,

'Save us,
Son of David!
Blessed is he
who comes
in the name
of the Lord!
Save us to the
highest heaven!'

"When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, 'Who is this?'

"The crowds answered, 'This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee!'"

- Matthew 21:8-11 (NIV 2011, adapt)

Simeon the Buzzkill

"Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother,
'This boy is assigned to be the cause of the falling and rising of many in Israel
and to be a sign that generates opposition
so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed.
And a sword will pierce your innermost being too.'"

- Luke 2:34-35 (CEB)

The story of Simeon waiting to meet the Messiah is a lovely tale, one which warms the heart and fits easily in the comforts of the Christmas season. Had Luke's Gospel only shared the remark of Simeon's fulfilled hopes, surely this would be a favorite vignette of many Christians. Unfortunately, as so often happens with prophets in Scripture, Simeon opens his mouth to speak, and in addition to the charming dreams of a pious old man we also receive perplexing - even violent - words which shatter the beauty of the scene and create a sense of foreboding and uneasiness.

Simeon's words make the point that Jesus is not and was never meant to be a point of unity, but rather a point of division. In Wesleyan orthodoxy, one's reaction to the gospel, after all, helps determine one's eternal destiny. There is an element to the gospel, therefore that is extremely exclusivist, in spite of the desire of many Church elites to lift up inclusivism as a primary doctrine.

We need to be reminded that the faithfully proclaimed demands of the gospel will repel as well as attract; not everyone is eager to lay everything at the feet of a poor Jew from 1st century Palestine and to acknowledge that this Jew is God incarnate in human flesh and the absolute Lord of one's life.

Elsewhere in Luke's Gospel account, we read these shocking words of Jesus:

"I came to cast fire upon the earth. How I wish that it was already ablaze!... Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, I have come instead to bring division. From now on, a household of five will be divided—three against two and two against three. Father will square off against son and son against father; mother against daughter and daughter against mother; and mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

-Luke 12:54-59 (CEB)

This is why pushing too hard in the Church for full inclusivism can be dangerous; definitionally, if sadly, the Kingdom does not include everyone. Not everyone is interested in acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus, and those who reject Jesus may be in for a sad realization when he returns.

John Wesley, in his notes on the New Testament, said of Jesus, "...he will be a savour of death to some, to unbelievers; a savour of life to others, to believers." Strong stuff. Not to be dismissed easily. Trying to be inclusive can be a good thing as long as we admit the gospel-imposed limitations of such practice. Not every behavior or decision can be affirmed in the Kingdom of God.

Simeon introduces to us a painful aspect of the gospel through his words to Mary, but, though they are not easy words, they are important and should not be ignored. We need Simeon's words at Christmas to put the miracle of the Incarnation and God's soteriological plan into its proper perspective. Obedience can be difficult, and it carries a price.

This post is part of the 2010 Advent Blog Tour
sponsored by the publishers of the Common English Bible.

A Lenten parable

"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death —
even death on a cross."

- Philippians 2:5-8 (NRSV)

One Sunday in worship, a congregation received a rather large family as visitors.

After the service, the family spoke with the pastor, explaining that they had been members of another neighborhood congregation but were looking for a new church home that would serve their needs. They proceeded to begin asking the pastor various questions about the ministry and life of her congregation.

The pastor interrupted them by asking questions about their family and their activities, both in and out of church. “I’m not sure that our congregation is the place for you,“ the pastor told them, “for when it comes to joining our fellowship, we are far more interested in those who are willing to serve than those who are willing to be served.”

Best Jesus movies

1 - Jesus of Nazareth (1977)

2 - Ben Hur (1959)

3 - The Passion of the Christ (2004)

4 - The Miracle Maker (2000)

5 - King of Kings (1961)

6 - The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965)

7 - Intolerance (1916)

8 - Jesus (2000)

9 - Jesus (1979)

10 - Mary, the Mother of Jesus (1999)

Rerun: Jesus' Ascension

Originally posted May 1, 2008

"...as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. While he was going and they were gazing up toward heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood by them. They said, 'Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.'"

- Acts 1:9-11 (NRSV)

Today is Ascension Day...the day on which we remember the "Ascension of the Lord". This Sunday, Christians all over the globe will be remembering this important event (if you're choosing to ignore it, then shame on you!). This event is a crucial theological event that pastors need to talk about and need to address, particularly in today's postmodern environment.

Too often, we get caught up in the idea of Jesus going "up", knowing that as one rises through the atmosphere, one reaches not the otherworldly realm of the Almighty, but Earth's orbit and, eventually, deep space. We must remember that the writer of Acts, as with all the early disciples, were trying to describe something which happened before them which was difficult for them (and us) to understand, using the vocabulary they had, and working out of the worldview they maintained.

In N.T. Wright's fascinating book, Surprised By Hope, he deals extensively with the notion of Jesus' Ascension. Bishop Wright describes heaven - the place to which Jesus "ascended" - not as a place far above in the sky, but rather as another dimension of God's creation, which exists concurrently with earth. He (brilliantly) compares it to C.S. Lewis' Narnia, which is distinct from our world yet only a wardrobe away.

The Church believes that Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father, and affirms this each Sunday in the Creed. Given Bishop Wright's understanding, this means that Jesus is very present with us now, though he is distinctly somewhere else. This says wonderful things about the absolute Lordship of Christ.

More than this, however, the fact that Jesus is now in heaven and not on earth reminds us that he will return on the Day of the Lord. We read on page 117 of Bishop Wright's book,

"At no point in the Gospels or Acts does anyone say anything remotely like, 'Jesus has gone into heaven, so let’s be sure we can follow him.' They say, rather, 'Jesus is in heaven, ruling the whole world, and he will one day return to make that rule complete'."

So, the Ascension strengthens not only our understanding of the Lordship of Christ (a strengthening which is greatly needed in today's Church), it also reminds us that our eternity will be spent not "in heaven" as disembodied spirits flying around the clouds (a la "I'll Fly Away"), but rather in the New Jerusalem on the New Earth, as transformed and embodied children of the living God, a concept sadly forgotten by many Christians, but a concept which has incredibly far reaching implications, theologically, practically, missionally, politically and socially.

So, my prayer is that the Church is blessed this Ascension Day, and that pastors and congregations across the planet ponder these issues and rejoice in the hope of glory!

Rerun: The Ascension of Jesus

Originally posted May 14, 2007

"He said to them, 'This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.' Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

"He told them, 'This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.'

"When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God."

- Luke 24:44-53 (TNIV)

I think that the Ascension of Our Lord might be the final act in God's narrative of the redemption of humankind (with Pentecost and the parousia being a glorious epilogue). I truly wish that we made a bigger deal out of this almost-forgotten holy day.

Luke's account of the Ascension (often forgotten in favor of the account in Acts 1) is a tremendously powerful passage. It presents a summary of the Passion and Easter, going on to commission the disciples for ministry, giving the promise of the Spirit's power. The skeleton of the gospel is encapsulated in a few verses!

Finally, after blessing his disciples, Jesus is "taken up into heaven". To be honest, this sounds very antiquated to me. After all, while the Biblical writers operated out of a pre-modern "three-tiered universe" understanding, we know that if one goes up, up, up into the sky, they'll arrive not in the Throne Room of Heaven, but in orbit and, eventually, deep space.

But we ought not allow ourselves to become too sidetracked with physics, which most pastors don't understand anyway (myself included). Instead, I'm intrigued by the language the Gospel writer used to describe this bizarre event. To describe the idea that Jesus was "taken up", Luke used the Greek word anaphero, which certainly does mean "to be taken up or lifted up to a higher place".

It's an interesting word, wonderfully rich in depth of meaning. Anaphero, as it happens, was also used to mean "to offer a sacrifice on the altar".

Look at these other New Testament usages of the word:

"Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself." - Hebrews 7:27

"...Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." - Hebrews 9:28

"Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?" - James 2:21

In fact, one of the primary themes of the book of Hebrews concerns the motif that Jesus had to ascend to Heaven after his suffering, death, and Resurrection in order to take his place in the Throne Room, where he serves as the Great High Priest and mediates on our behalf...

"Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself." - Hebrews 9:24-26

Symbolic, metaphorical language? Perhaps. But it is powerful language, filled with an astoundingly imperative truth...Jesus' priestly role. I'm not sure evangelicals deal with this particular role of Our Lord particularly well. We love to talk about the Prophet who challenged (and still threatens) the status quo; we are quite fond of the King whose sovereignty we proclaim as absolute in a relativistic world.

But the Priest? That's a mite too Roman for many of us. What's next...Mary? Many evangelical pastors aren't even clear as to what this priestly role is all about.

But the Ascension gives us an opportunity to ponder this aspect of Our Lord's continuing ministry. Jesus, who was the perfect, unblemished sacrifice, ascended to become the Great High Priest who proclaims absolution from the Throne Room of Heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father (a position of honor and authority). This makes the Ascension a crucial part of the redemption story, and something we need to address and celebrate in the Church.

Easter Sunday 2009!

"When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, 'Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?'

But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.

As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

'Don't be alarmed,' he said. 'You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.'

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

- Mark 16;1-8 (NIV)

Good Friday 2009

"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi,
lama sabachthani?',
which means, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'...

With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom."

- Mark 15:34, 37-38 (NIV)

Arminianism vs. Calvinism

Here is a link to an admittedly simplistic but effective analogy of the Atonement presented by the Wesleyan Arminian blog.

Thanks to Craig L. Adams.

Rerun: Was Jesus "punished" for us?

"...he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the suffering that brought us peace,
and through his wounds we are healed."
- Isaiah 53:5

This wonderful verse is crucial in Atonement theology, yet it is often, in my view, mistranslated and misunderstood. This can lead to some views of the Atonement which are not Wesleyan and, perhaps, not even Biblical.

The misunderstood word is the Hebrew word "musar". This is a word that traditionally has meant "correction", "chastisement", "instruction", "suffering", "rebuke", or "discipline", as from a loving father. In fact, "musar" is used 50 times in the Old Testament, and the King James Version always utilizes one of these English words. The ASV followed suit, as did the RSV about 50 years later.

According to Isaiah 53:5, then, and assuming a messianic perspective, Jesus suffered for us. The verse does not teach that Jesus was punished for us; "punishment" comes from an entirely different Hebrew word which is not used in reference to atonement.

This is an important distinction, because punishment and forgiveness are not synonomous, and salvation hinges on forgiveness in Wesleyan theology. When a person is found guilty of a crime, they are sent to prison, the imprisonment being their punishment. Let us assume that they have been sentenced to two years in prison. At the conclusion of those two years, they are freed from their cell, having served out their punishment.

It would be inappropriate for a judge to then say, "You have been in prison for two years; now, you are forgiven." The criminal was not forgiven; he took his punishment. The same would be true if a person received a fine for a parking violation. If they pay the fine, they have received their punishment, they have paid their debt.

Conversely, if a judge were to say to the criminal, "You don't need to serve two years; you are forgiven", or to the parking violator, "You don't need to pay the fine; you are forgiven", then there would be no punishment. Punishment and forgiveness are not the same thing.

In the 1970s, the Good News Bible (also known as "Today's English Version") appeared, translated quite loosely, a style known as "dynamic equivalence" (as opposed to the more literal KJV and RSV). In this translation, "musar" was rendered in Isaiah 53:5 as "punishment". Still, this can be forgiven, since the Good News translation itself was fairly paraphrastic and not really intended for academic or theological use.

The New International Version (NIV) emerged in 1978 as a legitimate translation alternative to the KJV and RSV. This wonderful translation made the mistake of translating "musar" as "punishment". Why?

Calvinists have held to a particular view of Atonement theology which states that Jesus, on the Cross, received our punishment. Thus, the demands of divine justice were satisfied by the death of Christ. The NIV was translated primarily by Calvinist scholars, so it is only natural that Isaiah 53:5 reflects their theological bias, even if translating "musar" as "punishment" was truly innovative, and without real precedent in the history of the English Bible. Surprisingly, the NRSV followed the NIV upon its release a decade later, as did the HCSB in 2004. I am grateful for the ESV (2001), which renders "musar" as the more traditional "chastisement".

Wesleyans should not forget the actual meaning of the verse. Jesus suffered for us, thus reminding us of the importance of suffering and the terrible pain inflicted upon our loving Lord...not that any debts would be paid through punishment, but rather that we might be truly forgiven. Jesus' suffering was substitutionary in that his suffering, "...became a substitute for something else that would otherwise occur" (in the words of the late J. Kenneth Grider). In other words, Jesus' suffering served as a substitute for our punishment.

In the words of Gordon Olson, "The sufferings and especially the death of Christ were sacrificial, were not the punishment of the law but were equivalent in meaning to it, were representative of it and substituted for it. The demands of the law were not satisfied by it, but the honor of the law was promoted by it as much as this honor would have been promoted by inflicting the legal penalty upon all sinners. The distributive (or vindictive) justice of God was not satisfied by it, but His general (or justice for the public good) as a responsible Moral Governor was perfectly satisfied."

This is more than simply a "moral influence", intended to show God's love and break our hearts, as much of traditional Protestant Liberalism maintains. Jesus suffered and died for a reason...to uphold God's moral sovereignty and to make real forgiveness possible, that we might know salvation. This is truly good news. We can know real forgiveness! Without question, due to our sinfulness, we deserve punishment - but are forgiven, because of the faithful suffering of Our Lord.

I urge my Wesleyan sisters and brothers to ponder this perspective as we approach the darkness of Good Friday and the glories of Easter Sunday.

- Originally posted 3/19/2007

Rerun: Kenosis

"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
who,
though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient
to the point of death -
even death on a cross.
Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."

- Philippians 2:5-11 (NRSV)

This is my favorite passage in all of Scripture, and it is absolutely loaded with Christological claims...

• it presumes Jesus' pre-existence and "equality with God";
  
• it affirms that Jesus became incarnate in human flesh;
  
• it emphasizes Jesus' humility and obedience to God, even to the point of a gruesome death on the Cross;
  
• it clarifies that, on the Cross, Jesus really died; there was no pretending, no "show";
  
• it proclaims Jesus' subsequent exaltation and universal Lordship.

What a powerfully important passage!

Verse 7 has always intrigued me...particularly the phrase "emptied himself", which may have serious implications in Christology. The Greek root word used is "kenosis", which means, "to empty" or "to be emptied". While some translations render the phrase "made himself nothing" (NIV, ESV) or "made himself of no reputation" (KJV), I believe that these are attempts to interpret a difficult concept, that of the Son "emptying himself", rather than simply translations of the text.

It seems to me that in the Incarnation, the Son "emptied himself" of something, according to Philippians 2:7. The question is, "Of what did Jesus empty himself?"

I believe that Jesus emptied himself of the glory of divinity. If God were to appear to us in all of his glory, how could we survive? So, Jesus emptied himself of God's glory, while remaining fully God. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, in stanza 2 of his "Oration 37" speaks of it as a "...reduction and lessening of his glory".

Retaining the divine nature, being emptied of divine glory also meant that Jesus emptied himself of the "omni" qualities of God. Pre-Easter, Jesus, in my view, was not omniscient, was not omnipotent, and was certainly not omnipresent.

If he were omniscient, then why do we have these words in Mark 13:32, in which Jesus is speaking of the eschaton in the so-called "Marcan Apocalypse"...

"But about that day or hour no one knows,

neither the angels in heaven,

nor the Son, but only the Father."

Additionally, why do we have the claims of Luke 2:40 and 2:52 that Jesus grew in wisdom? It seems to me that, like every human being, he was learning - about God, about himself, and about his calling. That's one of the most human of qualities, and, if Jesus didn't need to learn and discover his calling, he may not have been fully human.

If he were omnipotent, then why do we have these words in Mark 6:5-6, during a visit to his hometown of Nazareth...

"...he could do no deed of power there,

except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them.
And he was amazed at their unbelief."

Faith seems to be required in some way in order for Jesus to perform a miracle. This suggests that Jesus was limited in some way, and not all powerful.

I suppose I don't need to make the case that Jesus emptied himself of omnipresence. For one to make the claim that Jesus was omnipresent during his earthly ministry is to not only demonstrate a misunderstanding of human nature, but to seriously question Incarnational doctrine, which clearly affirms that Jesus lived in a definite place and time as a human being.

If Jesus had not emptied himself of these divine attributes, then he could not have been fully human. Imagine the baby in the Bethlehem manger. Now, picture that same baby as knowing everything, as being absolutely all powerful. He'd simply be playing human...toying with Mary and Joseph. This beautiful image can become very frightening, if the "baby" in the manger isn't really a "baby" in any sense that we would recognize; he's really quite monstrous.

So, Jesus emptied himself of divine glory, which includes the "omni" attributes, in order to become fully human. But, he remained fully divine. How can this be?

Our God is a god of paradoxes. The first shall be last, the last first. The God who never changes changed by becoming incarnate in human flesh. God is a god of wrath and mercy.

The Incarnation is a holy mystery. We can know in part, but not entirely (at least not yet). We may not be able to fully understand how it all works, but we can know that God does understand it, and that his reasons for doing things the way he did come out of his deep, abiding love for us.

It is a touching sign of grace that God is self-limiting in his love. This is part of the beauty of Philippians 2:5-11, and why I am thankful that it appears in the lectionary each year on Palm/Passion Sunday. It provides an excellent means to discuss not only the horrific tragedies of Holy Week, but also to talk about the greatness of God's love, and what the ways in which God modeled this love, to prepare us for heaven.

I am reminded of Charles Wesley's wonderful words...

"He left his Father's throne above

(so free, so infinite his grace!),

emptied himself of all but love,

and bled for Adam's helpless race.

'Tis mercy all, immense and free,

for O my God, it found out me!"

- "And Can It Be that I Should Gain"

(The United Methodist Hymnal #363)

- Originally posted 3/26/2007

Even More Wisdom from William Abraham

"God did not come into the world to hold an endless seminar on who He is."

- William Abraham

Thanks to Shane Raynor & Mark Tooley

Wisdom from William Abraham

"The Incarnation and Resurrection involve divine intervention. Suck it up or get over it!"

- William Abraham

Thanks to Shane Raynor & Mark Tooley

On the Virgin Birth

"It may be admitted, of course, that the Virgin Birth is not flatly identical with the Incarnation, just as the empty tomb is not flatly identical with the Resurrection. The one might be affirmed without the other. Yet the connection is so close, and indeed indispensable, that were the Virgin Birth or the empty tomb denied, it is likely that either the Incarnation or Resurrection would be called in question, or they would be affirmed in a form very different from that which they have in Scripture and historic teaching. The Virgin Birth might well be described as an essential, historical indication of the Incarnation, bearing not only an analogy to the divine and human natures of the Incarnate, but also bringing out the nature, purpose, and bearing of this work of God to salvation. Hand in hand with its biblical attestation as a fact, it thus has a theological necessity which not only supplies its vindication, but also warns us that its repudiation will almost inevitably be accompanied by a movement away from truly evangelical teaching."

- from "Our Lord's Virgin Birth: Why It Matters that
'a Real Son of a Real Mother' did not have a Human Father",
a Christianity Today editorial 12/7/1959

Christology, Not Just Sex

"Both conservatives and liberals shy away from debating the real issues that have divided United Methodism for decades: scriptural authority and the identity of Jesus Christ. Conservatives believe that the Bible is God’s wholly reliable, revealed authority. They believe that Jesus Christ is the unique Son of God, the supernaturally born son of a Virgin, who was boldly resurrected, the Savior of the whole world, who was dispatched by God the Father to redeem fallen humanity. Liberals, in contrast, see the Bible as human stories that illustrate humanity’s search for God. For them, Jesus is a social liberator, giving hope to oppressed peoples, much as Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi did.

“Conservatives see homosexual behavior as a consequence of humanity’s innately sinful nature. For conservatives, Jesus Christ is the Good News, who can break the bondage of all sin. Liberals see people as basically good, and therefore sexual preference is God-ordained and meriting affirmation. For liberals, good people do not need salvation from a Savior so much as affirmation from a Liberator.”

- Mark Tooley,
Taking Back the United Methodist Church (2008)

I completely agree with the first sentence of this passage from Mark Tooley: the current debate in The United Methodist Church is Christological; sex and connectional covenant issues are simply manifestations of this debate. The fundamental problem we face has to do with how we affirm (and if we affirm, I suppose) the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and what it means to do that.

I would take issue with Mr. Tooley's depiction of conservatives viewing Scripture as divine while liberals view it as a human document. We affirm that Jesus is both divine and human; surely, we can do the same for Scripture, without losing sight of the fact that it is our primary authority. Jesus, then, is both Savior and Liberator. For conservatives or liberals to forget this would be (and has been, at times) painful for the Church.

That said, in all honesty, it is my opinion that in recent years it has more often than not been the theological Left which has forgotten these truths. Many on the theological Left (not all) seem to be more agenda-driven than mission-driven, doctrine-driven, Scripture-driven, or Christ-driven. I believe the reason for this has to do with a failure to craft a Christology which is faithful to the authoritative truth of revealed Scripture and the Great Tradition of the Church, favoring other models with foundations that are less sure.

United Methodists affirm a variety of Christologies; not all are compatible.

The prescription for our current illness, it seems to me, must derive from sincere, painful Christological debate. Every pastor should lead Christological discussions in their appointed parish; every Conference should be engaging in these discussions. Talk and planning about goals, visions or hopes will ultimately prove fruitless if we do not first clarify what tree we are part of and determine what is the taste of the fruit we hope to help produce.

What unites us?

As I reflect on Annual Conference 2008, Jurisdictional Conference 2008, and especially General Conference 2008, the issue of "true unity" has been running through my mind. After all, the possibility for schism remains real. My opinion is that if the UMC position regarding homosexual behavior is softened, there will be schism. That's not my personal desire, mind you, it's just my opinion of what will follow that kind of vote.

Schism is a kind of heresy, to be sure. The question we will all have to figure out will be: "Who caused the schism; who committed the heresy?"

This leads to another question: "What is is that unites us as the Church?" Specifically, we could ask, "What is it that unites us as The United Methodist Church?"

This is no easy question.

We have so many interpretations (and translations) of the Bible that it would be inaccurate to claim that the Bible unites us. If someone believes, for example, that interpreting Genesis 1 literally is the only legitimate approach to that text, they can hardly be united with someone who approaches it more allegorically.

It would also be inaccurate to claim that we are united by our doctrinal standards. It's extremely rare for anyone during our Annual Conference session to make a reference to our Articles of Religion, for example. John Wesley's sermons may see an occasional reference, but much of this seems historical or, at best, inspirational for many of us. I have been with pastors who have denied one or more of our Articles; it isn't pretty.

While United Methodist clergy do function within the lines of apostolic succession, I don't think that this is what unites us. Most United Methodists aren't aware of the succession and could likely not care less.

Clearly, we are not united by a common liturgy, such as that which unites the Anglican Communion (at least in part). While I have my own preferences ("smells and bells!"), I think the diversity of our worship can be a good thing...from High Church to Southern Gospel to Baby Boomer to Emergent, and everything in between. It can be exciting and all very faithful when planned well theologically, but our liturgy clearly doesn't unite us.

We are not united by a common law or Discipline; for this, I blame primarily the left wing of the Church. They tried to find loopholes in Church law...just as the world would do...in an attempt to salvage the ordained ministry of someone who had admitted to being in violation of the law. In doing so, they played politics with the Discipline, and disregarded the clear wish and intention of the General Conference and our covenant together. That was very dishonest, and demonstrates to me that we are not united by canon law (remember - the issue wasn't sex...it was whether or not Church law had been violated).

Our common history doesn't really unite us, especially as we take in more and more folks who are former Roman Catholics or former Presbyterians or former Pentecostals or former atheists, agnostics or pagans. We may know about the history, but are hardly united by it.

It would be wonderful if we were united by a common mission, but, frankly, we can't seem to agree as to what being a disciple means, much less how to make disciples. And with the theological error of adding "for the transformation of the world" to our denominational mission statement, we are less united by mission than ever before.

I'd like to think we are united in and through Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit. But I'm not entirely certain we agree on who he is, much less what he teaches or the legacy he calls us to live out.

And maybe that lies at the heart of our problem. Our problem isn't primarily ethical, and it's not primarily Biblical. Our problem is primarily Christological. We simply don't know what to say about or do with this Jesus fellow.

The Right Reverend Eric Park wrote in his summary for candidacy as a General Conference delegate, "I am convinced that [one] of the most significant challenges facing United Methodism [is]...daring to live a life that is subordinated to the Lordship of Jesus and the countercultural ethics of the Kingdom of God."

That's it in a nutshell: how do we live a life that is subordinated to the Lordship of Jesus? We have no common understanding of what that means, especially as it relates to Holy Scripture, the Great Tradition, Reason, and Personal Experience.

Perhaps, before we have another General Conference, before we discuss any changes in Church law, we ought to find some common ground concerning the person and Lordship of this man Jesus Christ.