George H.W. Bush & Ourselves

Although I vividly remember the 1992 Presidential Election, I was really too young to understand it or have an informed opinion about it, but the occasion of the death last week of 94 year-old President George H.W. Bush and the subsequent media commentary and coverage about the life and times of that first President Bush has been clarifying to me.  Not so much about then, as about now.  Three observations about our culture that the death of George H.W. Bush have made clear to me, and what I am going to do about it.

We Delight in Tearing Down; We Hold Others to an Impossible Standard

I found it ridiculous how many of the death announcements of President Bush began with some note about how he "only" was president for one term.  Here's a representative example from the lede in The New York Times obituary:

George Bush, the 41st president of the United States and the father of the 43rd, who steered the nation through a tumultuous period in world affairs but was denied a second term after support for his presidency collapsed under the weight of an economic downturn and his seeming inattention to domestic affairs, died on Friday night at his home in Houston. He was 94.  [my emphasis]

Note: President Bush was "denied a second term."  As if being elected to two terms is someone's birthright, and as if being elected president of these United States only once is not good enough!?  Think how easily that opening sentence might have read

George Bush, the 41st president of the United States and the father of the 43rd, who, after a long career in public service, was elected to the presidency, from which office he steered the nation through a tumultuous period in world affairs and faced the challenge of an economic downturn and the public perception of his seeming inattention to domestic affairs, died on Friday night at his home in Houston. He was 94.

I'll admit it's not a very elegant sentence, but that's because I was trying to preserve as much of the obit's original language as possible, but you get the point: to imply that being elected president once is somehow falling short is outrageous.  The first sentence of the obituary shows that we delight in tearing down and pointing out how other people fail to meet the impossible standards of success we set for them.  Examples are everywhere.Some sports examples: Aaron Rodgers has "only" won one Super Bowl; LeBron should have one more NBA Championships with Cleveland; Peyton Manning "only" won two Super Bowls.  Etc.  It used to frustrate me when Tony Romo played for the Cowboys how some fans used to talk about how he wasn't good enough.  Here's a guy who was undrafted when he signed with the Cowboys, and then went on to start at quarterback from 2006-2015.  He played at a level that only a few dozen people who have ever lived could have played at, for multiple years, and yet he's a failure in many peoples' opinions, because he didn't win enough.We set an impossible standard for other people--he didn't do enough, she didn't win enough, etc.--and we make sure to emphasize where other people fell short, rather than drawing attention to all that they did achieve.  I hate this tendency in our culture.President Bush "only" served one term as president, "was denied a second term."  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?So, what I am going to do about it? I am going to work hard to talk about the positive achievements of others first. 

Our Media Commentators Are Totally Unaccountable

To his credit, Evan Thomas today regrets his editorial decision to imply, on the cover of Newsweek in October 1987, that George H.W. Bush was a "wimp".  I find it amazing that someone would call a man who was shot down in the Pacific Ocean at age 20 as other men were trying to kill him a "wimp".  But, there you are.  Taking our pervasive tendency to tear down (see above) and then publicizing it, our media does this kind of stuff all the time, and the mainly faceless and nameless hacks who do this kind of thing are seemingly immune from accountability.  To take a more recent example: on the same night that he won the Heisman Trophy as the best college football player in the country, Oklahoma's Kyler Murray had to apologize for what the USA Today called "several homophobic tweets more than six years old."Get this: Kyler Murray is currently 21 years-old, which means he posted the offending statements on Twitter when he was 15(!).  Other than yet more evidence that no teenagers should be on social media at all (I am not exaggerating), note the outrageous passive voice in the original USA Today story which "broke" the news:

Heisman Trophy winner Kyler Murray had a Saturday to remember. But the Oklahoma quarterback's memorable night also helped resurface social media's memory of several homophobic tweets more than six years old.  [my emphasis]

When Murray was 15 years old, he tweeted at his friends (via his since-verified Twitter account) using an anti-gay slur to defame them. Four offensive tweets remained active on his account late Saturday night but were eventually deleted by Sunday morning — when Murray apologized for his insensitive language in a tweet.

His "memorable night also helped resurface social media's memory"?  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  These tweets did not "resurface" like a corpse washing ashore after a shipwreck several weeks before.  Tweets don't "resurface"--they have no agency.  Instead, some nameless "reporters" at USA Today were running through a child's tweets from 6 years ago, and then they publicized the results at exactly the moment that would cause a 21 year-old young man the most embarrassment and discomfort.  Instead of being able to celebrate one of the great nights of his life with his family and teammates, Kyler Murray had to enact a familiar routine: the humiliating public apology we have all come to accept.  Let me be clear: I do not approve of Mr. Murray's comments.  But, it seems to me that the USA Today reporters were more interested in tearing down a public figure than they were in drawing attention to the casual way teenagers bully and humiliate others.It's bad enough that the Internet means that any fool can say anything about anyone else and have other people listen to him; it's that much worse that people in media can do the same thing and then use the amazing power of mass media to get millions of people to listen to them.There are many many many more examples I could list of unaccountable media commentators doing this sort of thing, and precious few examples of those people ever being held accountable for what they say.  Burns me up.So, what I am going to do about it?  If I have something difficult or controversial to say, whether publicly or in private relationship, I will put my name to it and stand by what I have said.  If I later change my mind, I'll own that, too. 

We Don't Like to Acknowledge the Sufferings of the Rich & Famous

By any standard, George H.W. Bush was born into extreme privilege.  There is no question that his life was made easier because of wealth and connections, and that the things he achieved may have been impossible to someone with neither wealth nor connections.  However, one of the tendencies we have to is downplay the sufferings of wealthy people.  See, wealthy people suffer like the rest of us.  George Bush, for example, had to watch his 3 year-old daughter Robin die from leukemia.  Here's a question for you: would you rather be rich and lose your little girl, or poor?  Trick question.  It doesn't matter--losing a child will break your heart no matter how much money you have in the bank.  Sheryl Sandberg, billionaire and COO of Facebook, lost her husband from an undiagnosed heart condition; he was 47.  All the money in the world won't bring him back.  Joe Biden has lost a wife, a daughter, and now a son.You may dislike those peoples' politics or positions, but you have to acknowledge that they have suffered.  I can tell you from personal experience that people with lots of money and power experience loss in the same way as the rest of us.So, what I am going to do about it?  I want to be someone who is aware and acknowledges the sufferings of others, particularly the people I disagree with.  They are human, like me. I said I had 3 observations, but here's a fourth:

P.S.  It Was a Memorial Service For All of Us

This is totally unoriginal with me, but one of the striking things about the funeral services for President Bush was how it illustrated how far we've come from a national faith.  There was a time when most Americans would have had passing knowledge of the hymns, readings, and creeds that were part of President Bush's services.  Today, I doubt that's the case.  In some ways, the elements of the funeral service were as far removed from modern America as the elements of a royal wedding or the Queen's coronation.  I found it interesting to see the living presidents all reciting The Apostles Creed together, with President Trump not taking part.  I doubt if Mr. Trump's silence during the creed means anything at all, and I don't really care, but I did find the moment symbolic: we modern Americans have less and less in common with our cultural past.  It's very hard for a people to stay together when they don't share the same fundamental beliefs about Reality.  I wonder how much longer we can sustain the American Experiment, now that we no longer believe the same things.  I hope I'm wrong. 

I’ve written a very short whitepaper on a subject I care a lot about: communication.Click HERE to subscribe to my newsletter and I’ll send it to you for free:The Simple Technique Anyone Can Immediately Use To Become a Better Communicator.(If you are already a subscriber, drop me a line and I’ll send you the whitepaper.)

Read the Bible With Me in 2017

Can I suggest a New Year's resolution for you? Make the commitment to read through the Bible with me in 2017. At Munger, 2017 is our Year of the Bible, and we're launching something called The Bible Project. Here are 3 reasons why I hope you'll join me in?reading through the Bible in 2017. 

The Bible is Difficult to Read Alone

Lots of folks struggle to understand the Bible, which shouldn't be surprising: the Bible is a collection of ancient documents, written by strange people in strange languages--of course it's difficult to read and understand all by yourself. Through the Bible Project (we've taken the name from some folks in Portland with whom we're partnering), however, we'll be updating our blog?every day with explanatory notes, videos, charts, etc. To give you an example of the kind of resources available, check out this great intro video to the Book of Genesis:[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOUV7mWDI34&index=1&list=PLH0Szn1yYNee8aedW_5aCpnzkxnV7VQ3K[/embed]The Bible is difficult to read alone--so don't. Read along with me.

The Last Time You Tried It, You Quit in February

Many of you have probably tried to read through the Bible in a year, only to abandon your resolution in February when you got to Leviticus (if you made it that far). You're much more likely to complete marathon training in a group, and in the same way you're much more likely to read through the Bible along with other people. I'm preaching through the Bible in 2017, we'll have a weekly Bible study, a daily blog, podcasts, etc. All these resources are to help you persevere. Good things come to those who persevere.

Nothing Has More Potential to Change Your Life

I guarantee you that 2017 holds unexpected challenges for you. How will you prepare? There is nothing you can do that will have greater potential to change your life and prepare you for the future than the daily discipline of spending time in silence and scripture.

So, Here's What to Do

If you are a Mungarian, pick up one of the?free One Year Bibles we're handing out at church; if you don't live in Dallas, get one of these from Amazon. (We're using the ESV translation, but they are currently out of print.) You could also use the Bible app on your smart phone and pick the One Year Bible reading plan, but I recommend using the hard copy.Follow along with our blog: bibleproject.mungerplace.org.Watch my sermons: http://www.mungerplace.org/sermon-library/.Start on Sunday morning.Of all the New Year's resolutions you could make, reading through the Bible is the most important.So, are you in? 

The fox knows many things;The hedgehog knows one big thing.Click?here‘to subscribe to regular updates from this blog.

I Cried When I Saw This Happen

I saw this happen this past Sunday morning as we celebrated our 6th birthday as a congregation at Munger Place Church. I know these people; I know their stories; they are my friends. As I watched them share their cardboard testimonies, I couldn't help it: tears ran down my face. (And I'm not a crier.)

2016 Munger Cardboard Testimonies [VIDEO]

As I watched these people share their stories, I kept thinking, "I am so grateful, God, that I get to be a part of this."2016 Munger Cardboard Testimonies from HPUMC on Vimeo. 

Make your inbox more interesting: click?here‘to subscribe to regular updates from this blog.

The Hard Questions Have Already Been Asked

As I wrote on Wednesday, I believe strongly that Christians?do not need to?be afraid of hard, honest questions about the Faith. One reason is?because‘the hardest questions have already been asked, by Christian theologians themselves. Often, in fact, the people asking those questions were the theologians of the ancient church, people like Origen and Augustine. (Origen, to cite one example, took on the opening chapters of Genesis and wondered--15 centuries before Darwin--whether the biblical account was meant to be taken literally.) There are many good, hard questions that you and I haven't ever considered, but I guarantee you that someone else has considered them. So the?next time someone asks you a hard question about faith, don't panic, but say, "I don't know, but I'll find out." Then, hit the library and find out what the ancient church had to sat about the matter.  

Make your inbox more interesting: click?here‘to subscribe to regular updates from this blog.

A Faith Unafraid of the Hard Questions

I believe very strongly that the Christian faith has nothing to fear from hard questions. If what we believe is True, then it can withstand even the most intense cross-examination. In fact, I think we ought to welcome hard questions, because hard, honest questions are often used by God to bring people to faith. This was certainly the belief of the great missionary and evangelist E. Stanley Jones (1884-1973), friend to Gandhi and missionary to India. In his missionary work Jones often fearlessly debated with people who were hostile to Christianity, and in his most famous book he explains how he came to be unafraid of even the hardest questions about faith. Facts, he realized, are faith's friends. In his best-selling book The Christ of the Indian Road?(1925), Jones writes:

?I have found a good many nervous Christians since coming home who are afraid that this whole thing of Christianity might fall to pieces if someone should get too critical, or if science should get too scientific. Many of the saints are now painfully nervous. They remind me of a lady missionary with whom I walked home one night after a very tense meeting in a Hindu theater. She said, Mr. Jones, I am physically exhausted from that meeting tonight. When I asked her the reason she said, Well, I didn‘t know what they were going to ask you next, and I didn‘t know what you were going to answer, so I‘ve been siting up there in the gallery holding on to the bench with all my might for two hours, and I'm physically exhausted!? There are many like our sister who are metaphorically holding to their seats with all their might lest Christianity fall to pieces under criticism!I have a great deal of sympathy with them, for I felt myself in the same position for a long time after I went to India. The whole atmosphere was acid with criticism. I could feel the acid eat into my very soul every time I picked up a non-Christian paper. Then there came the time when I inwardly let go. I became willing to turn Jesus over to the facts of the universe. I began to see that there was only one refuge in life and that was in reality, in the facts. If Jesus couldn‘t stand the shock of the criticism of the facts discovered anywhere, if he wasn‘t reality, the sooner I found out about it the better. My willingness to surrender Christ to the facts was almost as great an epoch in my life as my willingness to surrender to him?. I saw that [Jesus] was not a hothouse plant that would wither under the touch of criticism, but he was rooted in reality, was the very living expression of our moral and spiritual universe?he was reality itself?.The only way to kill Christianity is to take it out of life and protect it. The way to make it shine and show its genius is to put it down in life and let it speak directly to life itself. Jesus is his own witness?.I am therefore not afraid of the question hour, for I believe that Jesus underlies our moral and spiritual universe deeper than the force of gravity underlies our material universe.

from?The Christ of the Indian Road, by E. Stanley Jones

Make your inbox more interesting: click?here‘to subscribe to regular updates from this blog.

Is God Tolerant?

Tolerance is not just what we need to live peaceably together in an increasingly diverse society (though that's true): tolerance is much more important than that. In fact,?I think it's fair to say that life itself depends on tolerance, as does the fate of the entire world. 

False Tolerance

Tolerance is not, despite how‘the word is often employed, a vague sense‘that all beliefs and all religions are basically the same. This is a false idea, and this is a false definition of tolerance. In fact, it's the?exact opposite of what tolerance actually implies.

True Tolerance

Tolerance is about recognizing that all beliefs and all religions are?not basically the same. In fact, tolerance recognizes that many beliefs and religions are inherently contradictory, and no amount of hand-holding and attendance at diversity seminars will make inherently contradictory beliefs the same.Rather, tolerance is about making space for irreconcilable differences. Tolerance is not about agreement, but about?tolerating viewpoints with which you vehemently disagree.

Limits of Tolerance

It should be said that the one thing that we cannot tolerate is violence (which is not‘the same thing as speech, however ugly and hateful that speech might be), because violence makes tolerance itself impossible. But, with the exception of violence, tolerance makes room for all other actions and choices and beliefs.

A Theology of Tolerance

One of the main expressions of tolerance in the American Constitution is in our First Amendment: our right to religious freedom. (The First Amendment literally says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.") But religious freedom is not just a nice idea, codified into law. Rather, religious freedom is a principle built on the bedrock of reality, because it's a principle that is obviously true: all people are free to believe whatever they want to believe. You cannot force anyone to believe anything. God created us as completely free creatures, and we can use that freedom in whatever way we want. We are even free to believe ugly things and free to act in ugly ways, free even to reject God himself. And God permits this freedom.God, you might say, is tolerant.In fact, I‘think that the Lord is far more tolerant than I would be, were I in his place:?I'd never have allowed that evil man to massacre all those people in that Orlando nightclub.But then again, neither would?I have so loved the world that I would have given my only son for the world, knowing that the world (which I created) would reject and kill him. God's tolerance, you might say, made the Crucifixion possible.Which means God's tolerance also made the Resurrection possible.Which means that tolerance is part of God's plan to save the world.   

Click?here‘to subscribe to updates from this blog.

My Friend's Orlando Thoughts

I haven't yet come up with anything interesting or helpful to say about the murders in Orlando, so I haven't written anything. But I read something my friend Jacob Sahms wrote that struck me, and I share it below. 

Reading and hearing the responses to the violence in Orlando, I'm struck by the outrage - and the way fingers start pointing at anyone but ourselves. If we're going to be the peacemakers who are called the children of God, then the solutions all start with us.Do we talk and act peacefully? (Yes, that includes driving.) Do we recognize that we're all children of God, even the people we don't agree with/like? Do our dollars and our votes endorse peace? Do we teach our children peace and love for all? We can pray all we want for peace, but if we're not part of being peace, then "thy kingdom come" isn't actually something we're part of.

-Jacob Sahms

He's totally right: "the way fingers start pointing at anyone but ourselves." Certainly true about me, and I don't like it.Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace....

Does Old Testament Law Apply to Christians?

Does Old Testament law apply to Christians? A large portion of the first 5 books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) is dedicated to laws governing how?Israel was to live, eat, and worship. Should Christians follow those laws?

The Old Testament is Obsolete, Right?

I've heard and read something like the following argument countless times:No sane person thinks that there is any problem wearing clothes made of?different fabrics [Leviticus 19:19], nor would any sane person‘think capital punishment appropriate for a child who curses his parents [Leviticus 20:9]. Since we don't abide by these or many other Old Testament laws any more, isn't it clear that modern Christians shouldn't?abide by ANY Old Testament laws?Unfortunately it's not that simple. Here's the problem:The Old Testament, while containing some laws that no longer apply to Christians, also contains the Ten Commandments and other components of the ethical foundation of the teachings of Jesus. For example, Leviticus, the book everyone loves to ridicule, contains beautiful ethical teachings:Did you know that "Love your neighbor as yourself" comes from Leviticus? (Leviticus 19:18.)Rather than being obsolete, the Old Testament contains much that is more relevant than ever for the people of God. But, it also contains elements that no longer apply. Which is which? How do we know which parts of the Old Testament law we should follow, and which are no longer binding on God's people?

The Epic of Eden

Sandra Richter, Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, has an excellent book on the Old Testament called?The Epic of Eden: A Christian Entry into the Old Testament, which?I highly recommend to anyone interested in learning more about the Old Testament. In the epilogue to the book she includes some Frequently Asked Questions, one of which is?What Role Does the Law of Moses Play in the Christian's Life?? (pp. 225-229) I found her answer so helpful that I publish it below, with permission from her publisher. I've added my own remarks throughout.

What Role Does the Law of Moses Play in the Christian's Life?

Most everyone recognizes that simply abolishing the entire Mosaic law contradicts the New Testament (what do you do with the Ten Commandments?). Most equally recognize that imposing the law in its entirety on the Christian also contradicts the New Testament (what of God‘s instructions to Peter in Acts 10 to embrace unclean foods as clean?). So most have concluded that there must a middle-of-the-road position. The most enduring approach to defining this middle-of-the-road position has been the attempt to somehow delineate the law according to moral? versus civil? (or ethical? versus ritual?) categories. The claim is typically that the moral/ethical features of the law are still in force for the Christian, but the civil/ritual features are obsolete and can be put safely aside. For example, some would claim that the Ten Commandments can be cataloged as moral? and are therefore still binding, but the law requiring tassels on the four corners of a person‘s garment is to be catalogued as civil/ritual? and is not (Num 15:38-39). The problem with this sort of delineation, however, is that in Israel‘s world, there was no distinction between the civil/ritual and moral/ethical aspects of the law. All of these laws were deemed as the imperatives of God‘s divine will. Moreover, to honor your father and your mother? (Exodus 20:12) was both a moral expectation and the civil requirement of a patriarchal society to provide for the elderly of one‘s clan. And proper worship in a theocracy was an expression of both a moral/ethical and civil/ritual expectation. So what to do??[Emphasis mine. One of the mistakes we make in reading the Bible is to put?our own categories on top of it. As Professor Richter points out, unlike us the ancient Israelites did not divide the world into the sacred and the secular, the religious and the legal: it was all one. --AF] ?In the end, most assume that the Mosaic law is generally annulled as regards the Christian but hold onto those aspects of the law that are either reiterated by Christ (a good idea) or those that generally just seem right? (obviously not a satisfactory response to the question). [We see this all the time: people decide what's right beforehand and bring that decision to the Bible. Here's the problem, though--Where and how do we decide what's right? What are the sources we use to decide what's right? Aren't we in danger of just blessing whatever feels good to us, or whatever the dominant culture tells us is right? The reason for the Mosaic Law in the first place was to give Israel a way of knowing right and wrong that was distinct from the surrounding pagan Canaanite cultures. --AF] Although I cannot offer a complete solution to the conundrum, let me at least contribute to an answer.First, it is important to realize that as covenantal administrations change, so do the stipulations of those covenants. So, yes, the rules can and do change. And they change according to the will of the suzerain. [The suzerain is the king making the covenant, as she explains earlier in the book. For the Israelites, their king was the Lord. --AF] Hence, the first question we want to ask is, how does Jesus (our suzerain and mediator) change the rules with the new covenant?? We find the answer to that question as we read through the Gospels. Here Jesus regularly calls his audience back to the intent of the Mosaic law. Was the sabbath created for man, or man for the sabbath (Mt 12:10)?? Is adultery the problem or unbridled lust (Mt 7:27)?? Is it more important that a person keep themselves ritually clean, or serve a neighbor in need (Lk 10:30-37)?? So one thing Jesus tells his audience is to look beyond a legalistic adherence to particulars and see the goal of the law. This is clearly articulated in interactions like Matthew 22:36-40:

?Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law??? And he said to him, ?You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.? This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.? On these two commandments depends the whole Law and the Prophets.

Galatians 5:14 says the same: For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.? Thus, whereas the detailed message of the Mosaic law embodied the love of neighbor and God in concrete, time- and culture-bound expressions, Jesus finds a way to articulate the transcultural and all-embracing message of that same law to a new audience. [Emphasis mine. I think this is a perceptive analysis of the ethical teaching of Jesus. --AF] Moreover, he makes it clear that this message is still binding upon us new covenant adherents as well.We also read that Jesus redefines the major institutions of Israel‘s theocracy: the temple and the theocratic government. The temple is first re-defined as Jesus?own body, and then as the individual believer and the church (Jn 2:19-21; Eph 2:19-22). Jesus is identified as the final sacrifice (Heb 9:24-26) and as the church‘s new high priest (Heb 2:17). Thus, with the new covenant we learn that Israel‘s temple cultus is obsolete. [A "cultus" is a system of worship. --AF] And if this theocratic institution is obsolete, I believe it is safe to conclude that the complex processes dictated by the Mosaic law that directed the function of this institution (e.g. the design and d?cor of the building, the cleanness of priest and worshipper, sacrifice, mediation and the calendar of cultic celebration) are now obsolete as well. This means that in the new covenant the specific Mosaic regulations regarding these issues are annulled: our buildings of worship are no longer required to bring sacrifice, the laws of clean and unclean? are abrogated, the mediation of human priests is unnecessary, and the holidays of Israel‘s cult have become a mere shadow of what is to come? (Col 2:16-17). [Emphasis mine. Did you get that? Because the Temple is obsolete for Christians (the entire book of Hebrews is essentially about this topic), then it follows that all the Old Testament laws pertaining to Temple worship are also obsolete. --AF]And what of Israel‘s theocratic government?? Keep clearly in your mind that Israel was a nation that was directly ruled by God. Yahweh was enthroned in the temple in Jerusalem, between the cherubim,? and carried out his ordinances by means of his officers, the prophet, the priest and king. Israel was a political entity with national territory. Its citizenry were, exclusively, the people of God. Foreign oppression, drought and famine were God‘s communiqu‘s that his people had somehow broken covenant; national prosperity was the sign that they had kept covenant. Thus the nation of Israel could justly go to war in the name of Yahweh, slaying Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites to defend the national boundaries of God‘s kingdom. But Jesus makes it clear that his only throne will be in heaven (Mk 16:19; Heb 8:1; etc.). And as we‘ve seen, the new citizenry of his kingdom will come from every tongue, tribe and nation. As opposed to the land of Canaan being the Promised Land, now all of the recreated earth is. Thus, in the new covenant there is no longer any single nation that can lay claim to being the people of God? nor any single piece of real estate that is promised to them.[Emphasis mine. This is HUGE. Whereas before Jesus you had to be a member of Israel to be part of the people of God, now the church--the new Israel--is open to people of all ages, nations, and races. --AF] There are new officers for this new kingdom too. Even a cursory glance at Ephesians 4:11, 1 Corinthians 12:28 or 1 Timothy 3 lets us know that apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, deacons and teachers have replaced the prophet, priest and king of the Mosaic covenant. The only title that survives into the new covenant is that of prophet,? but even this office is substantially transformed. Thus the very literal political realities of Israel‘s theocracy are abrogated by the new covenant, and I believe we can safely say that the complex list of laws and regulations that governed the theocracy are abrogated as well. [Update: This is why capital punishments for crimes such as blasphemy and sorcery, etc., no longer apply: those rules were part of the Old Covenant theocracy. The offenses‘themselves are still sinful, but now that we live under the New Covenant of grace and no longer under the Israelite theocracy, the way the people of God deal with those offenses has changed. --AF]?Then, of course, there are those aspects of the Mosaic law that the writers of the New Testament specifically address as being changed or terminated. A few examples would be the necessity of circumcision (1 Cor 7:19), the regulations of kashrut (Acts 10:15), the rabbinic restrictions regarding the sabbath (Mt 12:1-9) and even divorce (Mt 19:3-9).In sum, I think we can identify at least three categories of Mosaic law which, in their specific expectations, no longer apply to the Christian: those involving the regulations of Israel‘s government, those involving the regulation of Israel‘s temple, and those laws that the New Testament specifically repeals or changes. I would still argue that the values that shaped these regulations express the character of God and therefore must be attended to by the Christian, but the specifics of their application are no longer our responsibility. Thus my contribution to the conundrum named above is that rather than attempting to delineate the law of Moses based on categories foreign to that law itself (?more/ethical? and civil/ritual?), perhaps we should address the question through a lens that is more native to both Old and New Testaments?Jesus? redefinition of certain major institutions of the Mosaic covenant. And for all the Mosaic law, be it superseded or not, we need to recognize that we can (and must) still learn a great deal about the character of God through these laws, even if we can no longer directly apply them to ourselves in this new covenant. [Emphasis mine. Rather than being irrelevant to the church today, even those Old Testament laws that have been abrogated by the New Covenant have much to teach us about the Lord. --AF] So rather than thinking in terms of the Mosaic law as being obsolete except for what Jesus maintains (as has been the predominant view), perhaps we should begin to thing in terms of the law being in force except for what Jesus repeals.

Taken from The Epic of Eden?by Sandra L. Richter. Copyright (c) 2008 by Sandra L. Richter. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press, P.O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, IL 60515-1426. www.ivpress.com.

Click?here‘to subscribe to updates from this blog.

A Framework for Understanding the Bible

I'll be the first to admit that the Bible is a difficult book. One of the reasons it's difficult is that it's not really even?one book, but rather a collection of books. (That's what "bible" actually means: a?collection of books.) Over and over again people will say to me, "I'd like to read the Bible, but I just don't understand it." I hope the following simple framework helps you get a little more clarity and understanding.

All of History in?3 Acts

The Bible tells the story of the great drama of History in 3 acts, with a prologue at the beginning and an epilogue at the end.

Prologue

Subject: Beginnings. Adam to Abraham. The Prologue tells us why the world is the way it is. After a beautiful beginning ("And there was light....") the story quickly becomes a story of blood and betrayal: Cain kills Abel, and we've been killing our brothers ever since.Scripture: Genesis 1-11

Act 1

Subject: Israel. The Lord's plan to save all of humanity begins with one man--Abraham--and it culminates in one of Abraham's descendant's: Jesus of Nazareth. Act 1 is about God's chosen people Israel, and Israel's slavery, exodus, kingdom, exile, and return.Scripture: Genesis 12-Malachi

Act 2

Subject: Jesus. Act 2 is all about Jesus, from his birth to his death to his Resurrection.Scripture: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

Act 3

Subject: The Church. Act 3 is about how the church is God's means to redeem the world. It begins with a small group of disciples in Jerusalem on Pentecost Sunday and?it's still going, right up to and including the present. We are living in Act 3.Scripture: Acts-Revelation 20

Epilogue

Subject: Forever and Ever Amen. The Epilogue is about History's culmination, when Jesus returns and all the bad things come untrue and evil is finally ended.Scripture: Revelation 21-22

Conclusion

I realize that the above doesn't answer most of our good questions about the difficult parts of scripture, but it does give us a framework within which we can at least get our bearings when reading scripture. Keep reading--it's worth it.   

Like this post? Click?here‘to subscribe.

Saturday

What happened on Saturday?Jesus was crucified on Friday, and he was raised on Sunday.But what happened on Saturday?Nothing.Nothing happened on Saturday.In many ways, we live in a Saturday world. Saturday is about waiting. Saturday is about the promise of a better future that hasn't yet come. Saturday is about the hope that God will do something, but still not seeing it.We live in a Saturday world.But Sunday is coming.   

Like this post? Click here to subscribe.

My Thoughts on "Spotlight"

I?went to see the?movie Spotlight?on Friday?afternoon. Here are some quick thoughts.Every now and then I'll go to the movies by myself on Fridays. I tend to do a lot of my sermon preparation on Fridays, and from time to time I'll go to a movie for sermon research. (I'm not kidding.) I'm preaching on Judas this Sunday, and it struck me that the movie?Spotlight might give me some insight into the idea of betrayal.Spotlight, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture on Sunday, is about the investigative reporting the Boston Globe did in 2001 that blew the clergy sex abuse scandal wide open. It is a serious, earnest movie that thankfully avoids the self-importance and self-regard?in which these sorts of "Important" Hollywood films sometimes?indulge.At one point in the film, one of the reporters, for whom reporting on the story has been an emotional ordeal, shouts: "They?knew?and they let it happen...to kids." That line really struck me, and I just started crying quietly, in the dark.How could you betray that trust?But that's the way it always is, isn't it? Spotlight does a good job of showing how the real scandal was not that hundreds of priests preyed on the vulnerable, but that thousands of people let it happen, covered it up. As one of the characters says, "It takes a village to molest a child."The movie very clearly takes on the Roman Catholic Church, but I don't think Spotlight?is either anti-Christian or anti-clerical.? There was never a point while watching the movie that made me say, "I don't think you are being fair." Rather,?I found the film‘to be a spotlight on the inevitable tendency of the strong to hurt the weak, and the invariable human tendency to knuckle-under, close ranks, and deny ever seeing anything.I can't compare Spotlight to any of the other Best Picture nominees since I haven't seen any of them, but it is exactly the sort of movie that is worthy of that designation: tautly constructed, about an important topic, and a moving story.Recommended. 

2 Brief Thoughts on Elections

Christians make two mistakes when it comes to elections. Either we are triumphalist, thinking that because our candidate won, all will be well, or we are defeatist and despairing, thinking that because our candidate lost, all will be lost. Both reactions are mistaken.

Elections Are Important

Don't get me wrong--politics matters. I voted yesterday, and I think it matters who is elected, from dog catcher to president, and I want our leaders to lead and our government to run well. It matters whether the trains run on time and the roads are paved and the trash picked up. But as important as all that is, politics is not ultimate, and political power is not most important. There is something more important than politics, and therefore Christians shouldn't make the mistake of believing that our hope depends on how the election returns come in.

But Political Power is Not *Most* Important

Faithfulness is more important than politics and election results. David Watson is the Dean of United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, and he wrote a blog post yesterday about the temptation the church faces to value political power over faithfulness. Professor Watson's article is worth quoting from at length (though you should read the whole thing):

My fellow evangelicals, let me state this clearly: the ‘system? will never serve us, because the ‘system? is not of Christ. The ‘system? is a political machine beholden to special interests, lobbying groups, large corporations, financial contributors, and other entities, many of which are not the least bit concerned with anything remotely resembling Christian values. The idea that you can tear down the ‘system? and reshape it to serve you is, and always has been, a lie. It has been a lie since the time of Constantine. The ‘system? is about power, but Christ‘s power is the power of the cross, and God‘s power is made perfect in weakness. Christians must always stand outside the ‘system,? even when it is ostensibly Christian. As Christ taught us, No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other? (Matthew 6:24). Christians willing to compromise core tenets of the faith in order to bend the political process‘to their will may win in the short term, but it will be a pyrrhic victory. In the end, they will lose far more than they gain. For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life?? (Mark 8:36). It‘s not worth it. It‘s?not even close....

His ending makes our choice clear:

Who will we follow? Will we follow Christ and rightly understand ourselves as a countercultural family of faith, or will we baptize an idol of crass?materialism, place a crown on its?head, and call it?Jesus?

Good stuff.  

Click?here‘to subscribe to my blog updates, delivered right to your inbox.

Everybody Wants To Be The Same

Everybody wants things to be different, but nobody wants to be different. It is the different people, though, who make the biggest difference. The people of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon were always different, which is why they made the difference they did.

Le Chambon Was Different

Le Chambon is a small town in southwestern France, and for centuries it had been the home for a population of French Protestants called Huguenots. The Huguenots had been influenced by John Calvin and had been persecuted by the Roman Catholic French state during the wars of religion. The Huguenots, therefore, knew what it meant to be different and knew what it meant to suffer.

Andr? Trocm? and the Jews

When World War II began, Pastor Andr? Trocm? led the people of Le Chambon in welcoming and sheltering refugees and fugitives, many of them Jews. The people of the town refused to declare allegiance to the collaborationist government in Vichy and devised ingenious ways to disguise the Jewish population around them.In August of 1942, the police came to the town and demanded that Le Chambon give up the Jews they were hiding. On August 30, Andr? Trocm? ascended the steps of the pulpit in his packed church.The pastor told the people to "do the will of God, not of men." The authorities left the town without making any arrests.In 1943, however, Pastor Trocm? was arrested and detained for 5 weeks, and after his release he had to go into hiding until the end of the war. His wife Magda carried on his work and provided leadership to the effort to shelter and save Jewish refugees.Approximately 5,000 Jewish refugees were sheltered in Le Chambon (a town of only 5,000 people) over the course of the war; not a single Jew was given over to the Nazis.There is a memorial to Andr? and Magda Trocm? at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem.

If You're Not Different, You're Not Any Good

Nobody wants to be different, which is why the world is the way it is: everybody is just like everybody else.It's like salt. Salt is meant to flavor and preserve, but if salt loses its saltiness, it's good for nothing but to be trampled underfoot.The people of Le Chambon were different, and so they made a difference. In memory of the people of Le Chambon, the salt of the earth and "righteous among the nations."  

(Click?here‘to subscribe to my blog updates, delivered right to your inbox 3 days a week.)

Who Cares if Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? Lots of folks are asking that question these days, and though it is an important question (and one that I will not be answering in this post), I don't think the question is as helpful as other people seem to think.

Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

Some people say yes, and these people imply that Christians are therefore under obligation to show compassion to Muslims because of their theological commonalities. After all, aren't Christians and Jews and Muslims all "people of the book?" (That phrase comes from the Qu'ran.) And, since we are all people of the book, shouldn't Christians treat Muslims with compassion?I do not agree with this implication.

The Problem With Saying Yes

As Mark Tooley points out in Newsweek, if you stress that Christians are obligated to show compassion to Muslims because they are theological cousins, you are inadvertently implying that Christians are not under the same obligation to show compassion to other peoples with whom they don't have any theological commonalities. Hindus, for example, are not "people of the book," and yet that fact should not affect Christian treatment of Hindus (or Sikhs or Jains or Buddhists or atheist communists, etc.)A Christian's compassion for another does not depend on that other's theological commitments. Whether or not Christians and Muslims worship the same God is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether a Christian should show compassion towards his Muslim neighbor.Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? What if the answer is no--should‘that change how a Christian treats her Muslim neighbor?

Love Isn't Conditional

Christians are not required to only love people with whom we agree (or partially agree).Jesus, after all, told his followers to love their enemies.  

(Click?here‘to subscribe to my blog updates, delivered right to your inbox 3 days a week.)

This Is Why I Love My Job

On Sunday, I was reminded how grateful I am that I get to do what I do. The congregation I serve in East Dallas celebrated our 5th birthday on Sunday, and I'll be the first to tell you that the sermon wasn't the best part of the service. No, it was what happened afterwards that everyone is talking about.

Who Knew Cardboard Could Make You Cry?

We had asked some folks from our congregation to share their "cardboard testimonies" immediately following my sermon. Nothing I could ever say could be as powerful as what those folks wrote on their cardboard signs:[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjpUm6ROR-0[/embed]I feel so grateful to get to be a part of a place like Munger and to see the saving power of God up close.Amen.  

P.S. Subscribe

I generally post 3 times a week about faith and culture. Click here to subscribe and get my posts delivered straight to your inbox.

Happy Birthday Munger!

Five?years! The congregation I serve in East Dallas celebrated our 5th anniversary today, and my friend Lin Thomas--a great Mungarian!--blessed us with a birthday poem. Check out the 90 second video, below.

Lin's Birthday Poem

Lin, who is blind, is a faithful and generous member of our congregation. (You might remember that he shared a Thanksgiving prayer with us last November.) This morning, this is what he had to say to a packed house of Mungarians:[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs9-XMdy1jk[/embed]We are so blessed. 

P.S. Have You Subscribed?

I generally post 3 times a week. Why not subscribe for updates from my blog? Click here to sign up.

In Death's Dark Valley

Our community was shocked last week when we heard the evil news that an 18 year-old young woman named Zoe Hastings was found murdered. What do we do in the face of this kind of loss? I don't know the Hastings family personally and I don't presume to have any idea of the hell through which they are walking. But, I have been thinking about loss, and I humbly offer the following thoughts to anyone struggling with the question, "What do we do in the face of evil, death, and suffering?"

We Grieve

When we experience loss, we grieve. It is appropriate and necessary to be filled with anger or dread or numbness. It's okay to scream and cry. When someone you love is taken away, anything less than grief would be an obscenity. And, because grief comes in all different forms and in different ways and at different times for different people, whatever you are feeling is fine. Don't analyze it. Just grieve.

We Resist

When we experience evil and loss we want to scream out "Why?" When evil comes upon us, it is always inexplicable, but for some reason we still feel the need to offer an explanation. Don't. One of the wisest things I ever heard my father say: "Resist the urge the explain." We don't know why Zoe Hastings was murdered. No one knows. "Why?" is a useless question, and do not attempt to offer an explanation or a platitude--however well intentioned--to someone grieving. Resist the urge to explain: it won't do any good.

We Hope

I may not have an answer to the "Why?" questions, but there is something else that I do have. Please know that I mean no offense in sharing the following, as I am aware that not everyone reading this shares my faith. But, as a Christian, in the face of evil, pain, and loss, I have hope.Now, Christian hope is not wishful thinking. It is not a vague sense that we should think positively or put a sunny gloss on our grief. Wishful thinking has nothing to offer to those who grieve.No, Christian hope is?certainty. Christian hope is based on the fact that Jesus is risen; Christian hope knows that the?Resurrection proves that evil will not win and that everything sad will become untrue. Christian hope is the certainty that God will ultimately right every wrong.That is the hope I have.So, in the face of evil, death and suffering, we grieve. And we wait until the day when God will make everything new.And we hope.Lord, help our unbelief. 

P.S. One of My Favorite Bible Verses

Jesus says, I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world. (John 16:33)

Jesus is Not Running For President

Hypocrisy. "Hypocrisy" is the first complaint many people make against Christians. And you know what? They're right: we?are?hypocrites. Especially when it comes to politics.

Politics First, Faith Second

I‘ve noticed that many American Christians are shaped more profoundly by the political views of our respective tribes?liberal, conservative, etc.‘than we are by the Jesus we claim to follow. Recent polling of American Catholic views of Pope Francis are a good example of this tendency:

• Conservative Roman Catholics are in approval of the Pope‘s views on same-sex marriage and abortion (he‘s opposed to both) but they disapprove of his remarks on climate change and his critique of unfettered capitalism.
• Liberal Roman Catholics are the exact opposite.

I am not in any way implying that the Pope speaks for Jesus, nor that all Christians ought to think the same way as Pope Francis. My point is simply that it is troubling that American Catholic views of Pope Francis break down along partisan lines.And it‘s not only Roman Catholics who do this: Protestants like me do the same thing as well. And this tendency to put politics first and faith second is extremely problematic.

Jesus is Lord, Not Caesar

?Jesus is Lord, and not Caesar. For 2,000 years, Christians have made the claim that the ultimate authority is not whoever holds temporal political power, but that Jesus Christ is rightful Lord of the universe. Jesus is Lord, which means his place is first, and I (and everything else) am second. But when people who claim to follow Jesus take their identities from the Democratic or Republican parties first and from Jesus second, we are effectively saying, Caesar is more important than Jesus. We are saying our first allegiance is to our political tribe and we are only paying lip service to our Lord. Our tendency is to justify our political views with our faith, rather than beginning with our faith and then trying to work out our politics. In other words, we are hypocrites.

No, It's Not Wrong to Vote Red or Blue

I am not saying that if we all just followed the Bible then we would know exactly how to vote. I'm not that na‘ve. The Bible is not always easy to interpret or understand, and even if it were, this world is complicated and imperfect, so policy decisions are always going to require choices between lesser and greater evils and actions without certainty of outcomes. Life is complicated, and because of this, some Christians will believe that they can be more faithful Christians in the public square as Republicans and some will believe they can be more faithful followers of Jesus as Democrats, etc. It‘s not wrong to take a political position on this or that issue.What is wrong is to be a Republican or a Democrat first, and a follower of Jesus second. If you believe everything in your respective party‘s platform is 100% in line with the teachings of Jesus, you have a problem. It should be obvious that Democratic or Republican policies are uncertain attempts to work in a messy world‘they are not gospel, and we should not confuse them as such.

A Quick Self-Assessment

How do you know what you believe? If you are a Christian, do you believe what you believe because you have deeply wrestled in prayer and searched the scriptures over this or that issue, or do you believe what you believe because everyone in your political tribe thinks this way?So, with regard to the topics below, we need to ask ourselves, Why do we believe what we believe??

• Same-sex marriage
• Guns
• War
• Torture
• Drone attacks
• Immigration
• The Planned Parenthood videos
• The Death Penalty
• Welfare policies

Jesus is Not Running For President

We are going to have to pick a president next year, and that president will not be perfect. Christians will disagree over which man or woman running is best equipped to lead our country. That is okay. What is not okay is for me to transfer my ultimate allegiance to my political tribe. Jesus is not running for president, and political parties and partisan positions shouldn‘t be worshipped. Don‘t make the mistake of putting second things in the place of what ought to be First. That‘s called idolatry, and it never works out very well.Just ask the builders of Babel.  

Click?here‘to subscribe to my blog updates, delivered right to your inbox.

The Real Root of Our Dissatisfaction

"It's no wonder we often find ourselves looking for satisfaction in all the wrong ways. You and I are deluged from every side by advertising designed to foster dissatisfaction with our current lives. From what I've seen on television, my life would be much more satisfying if I were to eat Special K for breakfast, buy my car insurance form GEICO, and wear a Breitling watch. No one is impervious to advertising's influence....

The real root of our dissatisfaction goes deeper than our response to the blitz of media advertising. It resides somewhere deep in our souls and traces its origins all the way back to Eden. The serpent's question to Eve strikes home in all of our hearts: 'Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden"?'Before this, Eve had delighted in God's provision, but now she wants more. She decides that the only fruit that will satisfy her hangs from the branches of the one tree God forbade her to eat from. But upon partaking of the fruit, she finds--as we all have--that living outside of God's boundaries and provision leads to fatal dissatisfaction. Once humanity crossed the threshold into a broken relationship with God, we've been dissatisfied ever since."

from?Simplify: Ten Practices to Unclutter Your Soul, by Bill Hybels (pp. 256-257)

Why Did God Permit the Charleston Murders?

We don't know. "We don't know" is the honest answer to any question about why God permitted Dylan Roof to murder the Charleston Nine. No one knows. But though we will never have a definitive answer this side of the grave, a strange parable Jesus tells does offer an interesting perspective on the perennial "Why?" we ask whenever innocent people suffer.

Today's Eat This Book Portion

The?Eat This Book campaign?at my church provides folks a scripture reading schedule to follow. Right now, we are reading through the Gospel of Matthew (about a half chapter a day), and today's reading comes from Matthew 13, one of my favorite passages in scripture. Reading the strange parable of the wheat and the weeds this morning has got me thinking about last week's murders in Charleston.

The Wheat and the Weeds

Surrounded by a crowd by the shore of the?Sea of Galilee one day, Jesus told the following parable:

??The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field;?but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away.So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well.And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from???He answered, An enemy has done this. The slaves said to him, Then do you want us to go and gather them???But he replied, No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them.Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn....??Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.?He answered, The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man;the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one,?and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels.Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers,?and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears?listen!'"

(Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43)

Parables are meant to unsettle, to make you think. So go read this strange parable again, slowly. (In other words, don't scan the way you normally do on the Internet.)

Some Quick Observations

• Jesus points out that evil and good are so tightly mixed together in this world that no man or woman can perfectly separate one from another. I know this is true, because I know it is true in me.
• Jesus reminds us that, though evil seems to be growing stronger, so is good. This is an evil world, but evil is not stronger than good.
• Jesus says that, this side of Judgement Day, it is impossible to root up all the evil in the world without also destroying the good. For reasons only known to God, if there is to be good in the universe, there must also be the freedom for evil.
• Jesus makes it very clear that evil, though it seems strong today, will one day be utterly destroyed by God.

Let Me Know What You Think

I?find this parable strangely comforting. What about you? What do you think this parable is about, and how might it relate to the evil that was done in Charleston last week?