Posts Tagged ‘Jesus’

I think I often am too critical of the Church (that is, the global body of Jesus’ followers). Perhaps, it is a good thing in many ways, instead of following it blindly. I have many problems with evangelicals, and I have stated those throughout my time on this blog. I am evangelical so I find that I must be most critical of what I am closest to. Like family, evangelicals drive me insane, but, like family, I do love them. Like family, the Church has made me question if I even want to be a part of this, but, like family, I love the Church so much.

(more…)

Colossians Remixed

We covered the first ethic (ethic of secession) a few days ago. The second ethic in Colossians Remixed is the “ethic of community.” Walsh and Keesmaat quote Rodney Clapp, who states that the early Christians “were about creating and sustaining a unique culture…and they were determined to be a culture, a quite public and political culture, even if it killed them and their children” (p. 179; emphasis mine). The last line sticks with the reader. Losing one’s own life for a cause is difficult to perceive but to also put one’s children in harm’s way is seemingly inconceivable. The writer of the paper is indifferent about this statement, but it makes the reader think about his or her family’s commitment to the cause of Christ. The Jesus painted by much of American Christianity, frankly, is not worth dying for and especially not worth putting one’s children in harm’s way.

(more…)

Colossians Remixed

Part 1.

Jesus is no longer worth following, or, at least, the Jesus painted by twenty-first American Christianity is not worth following. He is not exciting. He does not energize. Many in America have made Jesus into a prosperous, white-collared North American in order for anyone to pay interest. On the other hand, the Jesus, who Paul espouses, is exciting and challenging. Through Paul’s epistle to the Colossians, Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat in their book Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire bring to light a first-century Jesus, who is the Lord of the whole world and an alternative to Caesar and his empire. Based on this type of Jesus, the authors do well to remind the reader of a few things that he or she should take into account. They take this first-century, subversive message of Jesus and apply it directly to followers of Christ today. This Jesus is worth following.

(more…)

Caesar Augustus

Many of my recent studies have been focused around Rome and the New Testament (as with my post on Warren Carter’s book). After doing much research, I have put together a document comparing Caesar and Jesus. We must remember that many (if not all) of these titles/topics were dedicated to the Caesars before Jesus so the New Testament’s critique on empire should not be missed. I know I left off some other important titles such as “son of God,” but this should be a good starting point. Also, I must state that I am indebted to Richard Smith from Biblical Seminary as his lectures have assisted me in these studies.

View the document “Comparison between Caesar and Jesus” here (.pdf).

Is there anything I missed?

What are your thoughts after viewing this document?

The Roman Empire in the days of the New Testament is the focus of Warren Carter’s The Roman Empire and the New Testament: an Essential Guide. Carter attempts to show the reader that the Roman Empire was at the forefront of the first century, Christian writers’ minds, and the empire is engaged in every chapter of the New Testament text (2006, p. 1). The contemporary reader struggles to see clearly each reference to Rome, but first century readers would have recognized the subversive nature of the text in every manner explicit, as well as, implicit. Warren Carter’s argument is quite convincing. He does well to develop the mindset of the first century writers, and he accomplishes his goal that the writers had Rome on their minds.

(more…)

I understand that a lot of Christians are upset with Pat Robertson, and, in a sense, so am I. However, our response must be one of love, but we must also point out where we, Christians, go wrong. I do believe Pat is a Christian, and I do believe much of his theology is poor. I am perturbed that Pat would say these things about the Haitian people when they are down (I suppose, kicking them when they are down). But he’s not the first to claim a disaster is God’s judgment on an area. I have pointed out another time recently when Christians have made rash statements about God’s judgment. Regardless, Pat’s statement was foolish (and I mean this in a “lacking wisdom” way, not a “he’s an idiot” way).

(more…)

Mark 11:27 Again they came to Jerusalem. As he was walking in the temple… Mark 12:13 Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. ¹⁴And they came and said to him, ‘Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? ¹⁵Should we pay them, or should we not?’ But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, ‘Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.’ ¹⁶And they brought one. Then he said to them, ‘Whose head is this, and whose title?’ They answered, ‘The emperor’s.’ ¹⁷Jesus said to them, ‘Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ And they were utterly amazed at him (NRSV).

A few things we notice from this passage.

1. Jesus has no money on him. I’m not sure what to really make of this, and I certainly do not suggest this means we shouldn’t carry any money anywhere. However, it is thought-provoking. Why doesn’t Jesus have money? Did he give it all to the Temple already? Did he purposely not bring money to the Temple? Does he have money? Contrary to some contemporary thought, I think ultimately this shows that Jesus didn’t have much money to his name.
2. Jesus sees through the question to the intention of the Pharisees and Herodians. Pretty good observation, don’t you think?
3. If Jesus answers one of the two ways his “accusers” hope he does, he will either be seen as a “rebel” or a “traitor of the faith.” If he says, “Don’t pay taxes,” Rome comes in (and we all know how they liked to handle things). If he says, “Pay taxes,” the Pharisees will call him a “traitor,” and many of Jesus’ followers will likely leave him because of their experience of Rome’s corruption and oppression. But Jesus doesn’t answer either of these ways, and that’s where he shows true wisdom.
4. Jesus doesn’t have a coin, so he asks his “accusers” for one. This may seem meaningless when we simply look at the text, but a deeper look into the cultural context will reveal much more. I would like to turn my attention to this…

In 1st century Palestine, it was unacceptable for a Jew to bring a Roman coin into the Temple. At this time (14-37 CE), a denarius had two blasphemous images on it–the first, a picture and inscription of “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of the Divine Augustus” (emphasis mine); the second on the back, a goddess with the inscription of “High Priest.” Thus, a God-fearing Jew (or culturally savvy one) would never have such a coin on his/her person while in the Temple.

This is where it gets humorous and exciting…

As soon as the guy grabs this denarius out of his pocket, he loses! The whole team loses! Jesus takes his accusers’ attempt to get him in trouble and turns their attempt on its head! Ha! They try to accuse him, but he gets them! Wow! I can imagine at least one guy in the group smack his own forehead and say, “Doy!” Hahaha!

That’s soooo Jesus, isn’t it?

And so, it’s almost as though Jesus is saying, “Give Caesar that disgusting piece of money! I don’t want it. He can have it. But Give to God what he desires–for you to love him with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. That’s what I’m all about.” Is that how we feel about money and the things of God? Are money and material items disgusting to us so much so that we have no problem giving them up? Are the things of God desirable to us? It’s something that we must think about.

It seems to me that Jesus often gives only two options to this debate: God or money. You choose. I know which one Jesus would.

(All of the above took place at my most recent class at Biblical Seminary, and such observations are credited to our professor Dr. Derek Cooper).

If you watch the above video, you may feel like I do that this is simply propaganda. Christians, particularly evangelicals, have been great at speaking for God and pronouncing his judgment on different things. Though I do not agree with this approach, they may or may not be correct. That’s besides the point. I want to speak of the logic behind this thought from two angles.

Tongue-in-cheek: Besides all the shameful theology going on in the video, there are a ton of spelling errors! C’mon! In the opening title of the video, the person spells Evangelical Lutheran Church in American incorrectly. “Church” is spelled c-h-u-r-c-h, not c-h-r-u-c-h. I’m pronouncing judgment on the producer of the video–God must have attacked his/her video with editing laziness. If you look at the tornado from the producer’s perspective and portray it using that video, it’s hard to see how it was coincidence. But no natural disaster happened during the Episcopal meeting so God is sending some mixed signals! Also, in a similar scenario, many don’t know that Hurricane Katrina demolished an evangelical seminary (Baptist something or other) in New Orleans more than it did the French Quarter. The French Quarter, a place of the satanic drink of alcohol, jazz clubs where one can find the evil instrument of drums, and some darn good cooking that will make you say, “[h-e-double-hockey-sticks] yeah!,” was the least hit of all New Orleans. So, what was going on at the seminary? That my real question.

In a seriousness: The Scriptures do tell us stories of prophets pronouncing judgment on God’s people. The funny thing is, that the majority of the time, it is because they haven’t taken care of the poor, alien, or outsider; not homosexuality. So, I have difficulty with this interpretation of God’s action. I’d like to process this through two subpoints:

(a) The theology that is displayed in the above video is not a theology of the Christian God. In fact, the idea is slightly deistic. The idea that God intervenes with judgment only via natural disasters is a viewpoint that God rarely is involved in our lives but only is when he wants to “make a statement” (per se). Thus, from my understanding, the theology is not Christian theology. If the producer(s) was follow Christian theology, s/he will make a video next time about his/her pastor’s sin next time he is sick. That theology of judgment is more biblical than an occasional only-when-God-has-to-make-a-statement view of judgment. The Christian God interacts in all areas of life, is involved in all areas of life. He does not sit in the clouds and occasionally throws lighting bolts at us. The video is more unorthodox than orthodox.

We must also remember that it is not a 1:1 ratio. Sometimes, Jesus says that one’s infirmity is based on his/her sin (cf. Mark 2:1-11), and, other times, this is not the case (cf. John 9). Thus, just because a natural disaster happens (which by the way, natural disasters are rarely used for judgment. I can only think of the flood where this is the case) does not mean it was God’s judgment. If so, the baptist seminary was evil, too. However, we are not God, and therefore, cannot be sure of this. This leads me to my next point.

(b)  I’m a firm believer that theology must always start with humility and prayer (maybe prayer first). Prayer, literally if on our knees or figuratively in our hearts, puts us in a posture of humility before God. We must be very, very, very careful of speaking about God. We need to speak about God as his people, but we must be very careful in doing so. I’m not sure if this was God’s judgment (and I highly doubt it), and so I will leave it at that. This video stands above the world and points down condescendingly at it. Jesus, on the other hand, condescends to humanity and spends much of this time on the margins of society. Read the Gospels, and this becomes very clear. It’s easy for me to proof-text and interpret things for my agenda, but it is much more difficult to follow the agenda of the kingdom with Jesus to the margins.

Let’s be on our knees.

I had a pretty thought-provoking discussion with some teens during the retreat I did for the two youth groups in West Chester. I can’t remember exactly how (though I have some recollection), but the question of the Antichrist came up in conversation. Basically, the question was, “Will the Antichrist be an actual person?”

We were looking at First John where the author states, “but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world” (4:3 NIV).

From this passage, I notice a few things off the bat:

1. The issue of First John deals with an early form of docetism, which is the denial of Christ’s humanity, that is, Christ didn’t have a real body but only appeared so. Thus, the author contrasting those who follow docetism and those with the apostles. Thus, every spirit that says Jesus didn’t come in the flesh is not from God (v. 2), and every spirit that says he is not from God is the spirit of the antichrist (v. 3).
2. The spirit of the antichrist is “coming and even now is already in the world.” Thus, people were embodying this “spirit” when they claim that Christ is not from God. It is already in the world but is also coming.
3. If any human beings are the antichrist, here, it would appear that the “false prophets” are.
4. Lastly, notice: the spirit of the antichrist is coming. We should not take this particular passage to say that a person under the title “antichrist” is coming. Rather, we should see that the same spirit that was alive at that time is coming some time in First John’s future. Thus, it seems that this would not be an actual human being.

But let’s look elsewhere at the “antichrist”:

Second John 7 states, “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.” Here, there are many antichrists (plural), and those are people who don’t acknowledge that Jesus came in the flesh. Thus, these early docetics are antichrists.

There is one particular place where “antichrist” seems to be an actual person. First John 2:18 says, “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.” Thus, “the antichrist is coming,” which implies someone/thing in the future from the present moment of the penning of First John.

There are possible references elsewhere in Scripture to antichrist. Paul’s “man of sin” (2 Ths. 2), Daniel’s “little horn” (Dan. 7), and Revelation’s “Dragon,” “Beast,” “False Prophet,” and “Whore of Babylon” are all possible references to the antichrist.

Daniel specifically speaks of this figure setting up an “abomination that causes desolation” (9:27). However, this is likely fulfilled in Antiochus IV Epiphanes from the Seleucids dynasty (reign: 175-164 BCE), who did just that, and his action of setting himself up in the temple led to the rebellion of Maccabees. With this being said, it still could prefigure another person titled “antichrist.”

Now, we all want the Bible to speak to us today I do think the Bible speaks to us today, but we must be wary of making “future tense” passages our future. But the Bible, when it was written, was written to those people in those days.

Therefore, it seems to me that there are many antichrists and have been many antichrists. Anyone who stands in direct opposition to the Christ is the antichrist. It seems fair to say that Nero was the antichrist. Hitler was the antichrist. Perhaps (and I mean perhaps), the Pope was (?) as Martin Luther claimed. Osama bin Laden is the antichrist. In fact, someone reading my blog may be the antichrist since anyone who has the spirit of the antichrist is the antichrist.

I suppose we could play semantics and say, “Yes, there are antichrists, but we are still waiting for the Antichrist.” However, it seems to me that the antichrist is more of a spirit, ethos, or principle rather than an actual person. The reason individuals are “antichrist” is because they carry the spirit, ethos, or principle of “antichrist,” as First John states, “…every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus…is the spirit of the antichrist” (4:3).

In conclusion: biblically, “antichrist” is not a person but a spirit or principle. With this being said, individuals can also embody “antichrist.” In places where Scripture alludes to “antichrist,” this person has greater power than most, and, so, the area in which they have power leads to many antichrist-ian actions and laws. In a world where Christianity was anti-imperial (and still should be, mind you), the laws and actions of persecution were clearly instituted by an individual who embodies the ethos of “antichrist.” Christians today in many ways continue to experience actions instituted by “antichrist.”

If this is true, instead of looking for a political figure to arise in the future, we must look for those people and things which are embodiments of “antichrist.” Unjust laws. Persecution of the church. Death in all its forms. And let Christians respond to antichrist always with love and peace.

 Someone once asked me, “If such American holidays are part of the ‘empire,’ what should we [Christians] do? Ignore it?” I think that’s a great question. I don’t want to be too critical of American holidays because there are many good reminders in them, and that’s what I’d like to focus on here.

Let’s look at it this way—the 4th of July is on Saturday, and so it will likely be that many Christians will celebrate this event on Sunday the 5th. A general question is, should we celebrate an American holiday on Sundays, waving flags, putting our PowerPoints in red, white, and blue font, etc.? The answer simply is, such things are unnecessary for our gatherings. However, I do think there is value in partaking in an Independence Day celebration. Here’s a few things I think we should focus on this weekend:

1. Freedom. I’m not talking about surfacey, “Lord, thank you that we live in a country where we are free to worship you,” or things like that. Those things are often true, but they’ve become cliché. Christians must promote freedom in Christ. Christ most certainly came to bring freedom to the captives. This doesn’t mean that America is Christ’s right arm. It means that on Independence Day let’s be sure to remember the freedom Christ gave us.
2. Prayer. We must pray for those who serve our country, that is, our leaders. Pray for Obama, pray for your Governor, your representatives, and so on. They need prayer.
3. Joy. Be joyful in the friends and family the Lord has provided you with. Be joyful in the creation since many of us will be playing wiffle ball or chasing fireflies. These things cherish God’s creation.
4. Beauty. One of my favorite Independence Day traditions is going to see fireworks. I think we are attracted to their beauty. You will be part of many beautiful things this weekend so appreciate them.
5. Interdependence. See Shane’s article below. But the fact is, holidays remind us how dependent we are on one another. As someone makes you a burger, or invites you to play volleyball, or turns on your fire hydrant for the kids in the neighborhood, remember we are all in this together.

Those are just a few thoughts. What about you? What should Christians celebrate this weekend?

For a few more thoughts, go see Shane Claiborne’s post on Sojourners called: “40 Ways to Celebrate Interdependence Day on July 4”