Exclusion, Embrace, and Our “Hotel Rwanda” World

Miroslav Wolf’s Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation, provides a brilliant and much-needed message today. Sadly, it’s a “Hotel Rwanda” world out there. Ethnic and cultural differences divide even Christians from living out Jesus’ John 17 prayer “that we would be one, even as I and the Father are one.”
Volf shows how when religion is de-ethnicized, ethnicity can be de-sacralized (49). Put more simply, Christians must get out of their narrow little theological boxes and enter into a vast spiritual home where God’s grace has assembled a lot of really “different” people. Here is a place, a world, where differences can be acknowledged and our common identity in Christ allows us to embrace one another. If we, as followers of Jesus, lived this out not only would there be fewer global ethnic wars (in the name of religion), there would also be fewer marital divorces because so-called “irreconcilable differences” would be able to coinhabit within the household of God.
As Volf says, “When God comes, God brings a whole new world. The Spirit of God breaks through the self-enclosed worlds we inhabit; the Spirit re-creates us and sets us on the road toward become what I like to call a “catholic personality,” a personal microcosm of the eschatological new creation. A catholic personality is a personality enriched by otherness, a personality which is what it is only because multiple others have been reflected in it in a particular way. The distance from my own culture that results from being born by the Spirit creates a fissure in me through which others can come in. The Spirit unlatches the doors of my heart, saying: “You are not only you; others belong to you too.”” (51)

The Prophet Isaiah and the Real "Christmas"

As I preached out of Isaiah during December I found myself viewing Christmas differently than years past. A bit of a “mental revolution” (see Romans 12:2) has been happening inside me. But this really began, for me, last July at our Holy Spirit renewal Conference in Green Lake, Wisconsin. As missionary David Singh spoke about passion for outreach and mission my heart was spoken to by God. Some old things were reawakened and some new things were birthed. I was taken back to how years ago God called Linda and I to travel weekly throughout the Midwest writing songs, doing concerts, giving our testimonies, and seeing many come to be followers of Jesus as a result. I was also reminded of how God called Linda and I to be campus pastors at Michigan State University. Our goals were: to reach university students and professors for Jesus Christ, and to make disciples of them. For me it doesn’t get any better spiritually than seeing a person receive Christ, then follow Him into service in a local church or even beyond as a missionary. After hearing David preach I knew I must bring him to my church to ignite a greater passion for involvement in outreach.
So in September David came and preached about outreach and mission as worship. Then, our missionary to Mexico and beyond Chris Bajkiewicz spoke to us about having a heart for the poor. And then our Native American missionary Randy Woodley challenged us about ministering outside the walls of our church building. Plus, for me and Linda, our son Dan went to serve full-time as a missionary in Istanbul, Turkey, as one of the very few Christians there among a sea of Muslims. All of these things have worked inside me to say – I must do more in terms of reaching out to the unchurched.
Which brings me back to Isaiah and Christmas. Isaiah blasts his own self-centered people “who add house to house and join field to field till no space is left and you live alone in the land” (Isaiah 5:8). What happens when people turn their backs on God to attend to building their own little kingdoms? The results are the loss of justice for the poor and oppressed peoples of the earth (see Isaiah 1:21, 5:7, and 10:1-4). But the coming of the Christ (Isaiah 7:14; 10: 9:6) will mean precisely the return of justice and righteousness for the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized. So what can we do? We can follow Isaiah’s instructions: “Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed, defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow” (Isaiah 1:16-17). Note that without this God tells us: “Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations- I cannot bear your evil assemblies. Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen” (Isaiah 1:13-15). For Isaiah, the sign of God-abandonment is self-centeredness and the resulting lack of proactive caring for the poor and oppressed. This is so significant that Jesus Himself says He will evaluate us on the Day of Judgment in terms of how we fed the poor, clothed the poor, took in the stranger, and helped those under oppression. If you don’t think this is correct I invite you to re-read Matthew 25:31-46.
One effect of this for me is that I have formed a Mission Outreach Team at our church and am pleased to tell you that, so far, 15-20 persons have responded positively. Our next meeting is Saturday morning, January 15, 10-11:30 AM, at our church building. Our first outreach will be to Alcoholics Anonymous of Monroe County on Sunday, February 13.
A few weeks ago a prophetic words was submitted to me that said this: “As you reach out beyond the four walls of the church building to the poor and “the least of these” I (God) will do a new and great thing in your midst.” I have a sense of certainty that this is correct. I especially heard it through David Singh last summer.
And that, for me, lies at the center of "Christmas." It's hard to see in the America we live in. No wonder America is becoming increasingly secular the church is considered irrelevant and impotent.

Atheist Antony Flew Now Believes in God

As an undergraduate student in philosophy many students, including myself, had to read atheist Antony Flew's famous article "Theology and Falsification." This article contained Flew's very famous "parable of the gardnener." Flew's gardener parable says this: If we walk into a garden and see weeds overgrowing the cultivated plants, then we can assume that either the gardener has abandoned the place or, as Flew believed, there really is and was no "gardener" in the first place. The world, argued Flew, is like an untended garden. It is beautiful and incredible, but no one made it and no one is watching over it. Things like natural disasters, evil, and other disruptive events make it impossible to believe in God. For an example of Flew arguing for atheism against William Lane Craig see their debate.
But now, at age 81, Flew has openly stated that he believes in God. Today we read: "At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England."
In the August/September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine Flew wrote, "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."
The news article writes: "Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life. " Flew says it's too bad if followers of his are upset by his new belief. He states, "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads." Apparently the evidence of intelligent design in the universe has led Flew back to the existence of a gardener.
Now it will be fun to watch the atheists at infidels.org scramble to deconstruct Flew's theism.

Michael Shermer, Dostoevsky, and Leading a Moral Life

Atheist Michael Shermer, in his new book The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Share, Care, and Follow the Golden Rule, writes: "Can we lead moral lives without recourse to a transcendent being that may or may not exist? Can we construct an ethical system without religion? Most believers and theists answer no."
Shermer's comments are misleading. First, I am not sure that most believers and theists answer no. Maybe. Maybe not. However, the likes of William Lane Craig et. al. answer yes. Of course persons can be good without believing in God. The deeper response is this: without God, there is no reason to be good. Thus Nietzsche says, in the absence of God, we must move "beyond good and evil."
In the midst of his comments Shermer cites Dostoevsky's famous quote from The Brothers Karamozov: "If God does not exist, then anything goes." Dostoevsky's idea speaks to the deeper issue. Which is: of course people can be good without God. But without God, there is no real reason to be good. Thus, without God, anything goes.
Can we be moral beings? Yes. Can we construct moral systems? Yes. Should we be moral beings? If there is no God-as-Moral-Originator, the answer seems to be: no.

Belief and Death

My mother, Esther Piippo, died last Saturday, November 20, 2004, at 2:15 AM. My brother Mike and I and Linda were able to be with her just before she died. She was weak and frail, having struggled with a failing heart valve, an infection that did not go away for many months, an increasing inability to eat and drink, and with that the loss of desire to eat and drink.
In her weakness she found it excruciatingly tough to even open her eyes. I asked her once, "Mom, open your eyes - it's me. I'm here with you." And just for a brief moment there was a small window of visual opportunity as she opened her eyes, saw me, and I smiled at her.
Now she is with God. Now she is in eternity. This was her hope and is mine also.
I find this hope to be real and convincing intellectually. But also, experientially it works to give me inner peace. At a time like this I see that, yes, I am a believer.
All the needed words of love were said between me and mom. No bitterness, no unhealed wounds, no regrets. This is the way it should happen and it makes a huge difference in the aftermath.
So I give a final earthly tribute to you, mom. You were a faithful wife to dad and a loving mother to Mike and me. You still are the best cook I've ever known. You turned me on to nature early, and I still watch birds because of you. Your love for music and artistic creativity hooked me on to the guitar and songwriting. Your tenderness towards this world's "least of these" was Christlike. You prayed with me and held me and loved me even when I went astray from God as a late teen. You accepted my beautiful wife Linda and loved my three boys. Now you are in eternity with dad - see you very soon...
Love,
John

Jesus the Logician

One of the many things I appreciate about Dallas Willard is his biblical integration of heart and mind. For a good example of this see his article Jesus the Logican. Here, e.g., is a nice quote from this article:
"We need to understand that Jesus is a thinker, that this is not a dirty word but an essential work, and that his other attributes do not preclude thought, but only insure that he is certainly the greatest thinker of the human race: "the most intelligent person who ever lived on earth." He constantly uses the power of logical insight to enable people to come to the truth about themselves and about God from the inside of their own heart and mind. Quite certainly it also played a role in his own growth in "wisdom." (Luke 2:52)
Often, it seems to me, we see and hear his deeds and words, but we don't think of him as one who knew how to do what he did or who really had logical insight into the things he said. We don't automatically think of him as a very competent person. He multiplied the loaves and fishes and walked on water, for example--but, perhaps, he didn't know how to do it, he just used mindless incantations or prayers. Or he taught on how to be a really good person, but he did not have moral insight and understanding. He just mindlessly rattled off words that were piped in to him and through him. Really?
This approach to Jesus may be because we think that knowledge is human, while he was divine. Logic means works, while he is grace. Did we forget something there? Possibly that he also is human? Or that grace is not opposed to effort but to earning? But human thought is evil, we are told. How could he think human thought, have human knowledge? So we distance him from ourselves, perhaps intending to elevate him, and we elevate him right out of relevance to our actual lives--especially as they involve the use of our minds. That is why the idea of Jesus as logical, of Jesus the logician, is shocking. And of course that extends to Jesus the scientist, researcher, scholar, artist, literary person. He just doesn't 'fit' in those areas. Today it is easier to think of Jesus as a "TV evangelist" than as an author, teacher or artist in the contemporary context. But now really!--if he were divine, would he be dumb, logically challenged, uninformed in any area? Would he not instead be the greatest of artists or speakers? Paul was only being consistent when he told the Colossians "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are concealed in him." (2:3) "

Mythology, "Dying & Rising Gods," and the Uniqueness of Jesus

Theolobloggy member Joe writes:

"I wanted to ask you what you thought about people who say that Christianity is nothing new in religion. I've heard people say that many religions have a "god" that comes to earth to save people, religions that are way older than Christianity. I kind of have a feeling that's not true, but I don't know how to discuss that with them.
Thanks John.
Joe"

Thank you Joe for the question.

First, we can respond to this by pointing out that Jesus is an historical figure, whereas the gods of ancient Greece and Gnosticism are not historical.

Secondly, there is strong inductive evidence for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. See, e.g., N.T. Wright’s recent The Resurrection of the Son of God and the “Historical Jesus” section of William Lane Craig’s website.

Now note this:

• Historical arguments cannot be made for mythological gods actually dying and rising from the dead.
• Jesus, unlike all mythological figures, actually existed.
• A strong inductive argument can be made that Jesus was crucified and later rose from the dead.
• This makes Christianity radically different from mythological stories about dying and rising gods.
• Even if there was one story about a dying and rising god that had a few similarities to the story of Jesus the existence of this story would not invalidate the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus any more than would the existence of an ancient story having similarities with the tragic 911 event invalidate that event's actual occurence in history.

But now, and most importantly, note also this: the "dying and rising gods" theory is outmoded and inaccurate, thereby false. Here's why:

• For a more up-to-date study of dying and rising gods see: Tryggve Mettinger, The Riddle of the Resurrection: "Dying and Rising Gods" in the Ancient Near East. Such myths are themselves suspect as regards being at all analogous to the biblical claims of what happened to Jesus.
• See David Frankfurter's (Univerity of New Hampshire) comments on Mettinger's work. Frankfurter writes: "It is precisely in this rigorous attention to differences and to the various meanings of gods' deaths and reappearances that Mettinger's work fractures the very usefulness of the category "dying and rising god." By the end of the monograph, the category emerges as a rather simplistic generalization for a very wide array of gods and a very murky range of rituals."
• In other words, the "dying and rising gods" mythology has been called into question. The work of J.G. Frazer in The Golden Bough (from which this idea came from) has been and is being discredited.
• And once more from Frankfurter: "Most recently, the historian of religions Jonathan Z. Smith and the semiticist Mark Smith have declared the myth of the dying and rising god a fantasy, the product of uncritical comparison rather than a close consideration of evidence. More to the point, J. Z. Smith has used the dying/rising god myth as an example of the kinds of errors that cripple the enterprise of comparative religion when scholars ignore the following principles: comparison must always be towards differentiation in regard to a general category ("dying/rising god") rather than in finding links across individual examples ("Osiris like Attis"); concepts of "myth" and "ritual" must be defined and regarded as fundamentally separate dimensions for narrative; one should avoid generalizing elaborate patterns across all religions; one should consider the evidence for a myth or a ritual as the product of a particular historical context, not as timeless outcrops of a widespread pattern; one should not take similarity as evidence for genealogy or influence; and finally, in the face of evidence for gods who "die" but don't "rise," one should not impose the total Frazerian pattern but accept that one transition might occur without the other."
• So - one can answer someone who still says this sort of thing by saying: There really are no clear, adequate historical antecedents to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Blessings,

John

Spiritual Coaching

For information and resources having to do with Spiritual Coaching check out my Coaching Website.

Hell

The idea of “hell” is a tough one for some people. Yet I believe the notion of hell is sensible in light of the character of God. The biblical teaching is this: every friend you have, every person you love, all those you work with, all persons in your neighborhood, from the elderly couple down the street to the baby born to the young couple next door, will one day enter into an eternity with God or an eternity separated from God. Thus every one of them needs to be saved. Romans 10:9 states, "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." And Romans 10:13 says, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." “Saved” – from what? From our sins. But why do we need to be saved from our sins? Because God is holy and cannot tolerate one micro-ounce of sin.
The Old Testament expresses this idea in Daniel 12:2 – “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.”
Jesus talked about hell in Matthew 10:28, Matthew 16:26, and Matthew 25:41, 46 - "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." For me we have a logical argument that goes like this.
· If Jesus is God the Son, then the words of Jesus are from God and can be considered true.
· Jesus is God the Son (by His historical resurrection).
· Therefore the words of Jesus are true, to include what He says about heaven and hell.
What the apostle Paul says about hell in Romans 9:22 moves us to believe that God treats all persons with respect. Paul writes: “God has every right to exercise his judgment and his power, but he also has the right to be very patient with those who are the objects of his judgment and are fit only for destruction.” The word “fit” can be viewed as being in the middle voice form which implies personal responsibility. For example, here in Monroe when a person wants to get “fitted” for hunting they go to that incredible store Cabela’s. But there is also a lifestyle, reflected by a person’s own life choices, that “fits” them for their eternal destiny. There is, so to speak, a “Ca-hell-a’s” that “outfits” a person for eternal destruction, and there is the choice of Romans 10:9-13 that “outfits” a person for heaven by clothing them in a righteousness that is not their own. God, being a respecter every person’s choice, allows people to outfit themselves either for Him or for hell. God does not send people to hell; people choose hell and receive the results of their choice.
Note that, if there were no hell, the Cross would not have been needed. “The Passion of the Christ” would then be a nonsensical act. This is because our sins would not make a separation between us and God, and there would be no need for Christ to die to forgive our sins. This is serious stuff, because the absence of hell would mean that God tolerates sin. This is why the great theologian R.C. Sproul has written, "I can't think of anything more politically incorrect to preach in 21st century America than the wrath of God, or the justice of God, or the doctrine of Hell… I think what we face in the church today is a virtual eclipse of the character of God."
On July 4, 1854, Charlie Peace, a well-known criminal in London, was hung. The Anglican Church, which had a ceremony for everything, even had a ceremony for hanging people. So when Charlie Peace was marched to the gallows, a priest read these words from the Prayer Book: "Those who die without Christ experience hell, which is the pain of forever dying without the release which death itself can bring."When these chilling words were read, Charlie Peace stopped in his tracks, turned to the priest, and shouted in his face, "Do you believe that? Do you believe that?" The priest, taken aback by this verbal assault, stammered for a moment then said, "Well…I…suppose I do." "Well, I don't," said Charlie. "But if I did, I'd get down on my hands and knees and crawl all over Great Britain, even if it were paved with pieces of broken glass, if I could rescue one person from what you just told me."
Jesus believed in and taught about hell, and thus He crawled up that hill dragging the Cross on His back. Bill Hybels says, "Are we responsible for teaching the whole message of the Gospel of Christ? Absolutely. Anybody who doesn't, I think the Scriptures are clear, will stand accountable before God someday." You and I are accountable for teaching the whole message of Christ. Eternal destinies are at stake.(For a philosophical understanding of hell, see William Lane Craig, Middle Knowledge and Christian Exclusivism, and Politically Incorrect Salvation.

Suffering, Good, and the Glory of God

Would God allow suffering in a person’s life if it would bring glory to Him? What if my suffering would help others to find God and to know God? Let’s take this a bit further: Would God purpose suffering in my life if it would bring glory to Him? I’m asking this question because I believe it will guide us to understand Romans 8:28, which reads: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” Or, as The Message puts it: “That's why we can be so sure that every detail in our lives of love for God is worked into something good.”
First, to understand this great promise we have to understand the meaning of “good.” Biblically “good” is defined in relation to the being of God. Seven times, in Genesis chapter 1, God creates and we then hear the words – “And God saw that it was good.” James 1:17 says, “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shdows.” “Good” has to have a standard, otherwise the term “good” has no meaning. For example, many years ago I played the flute. I have not touched a flute in 30 years. If I played it now and someone said that I am a "good" flute player, I would say – “I don’t think you know what “good” flute playing really is. I heard Alexander Zonjic at the Monroe Jazz Festival this summer – that is “good” flute playing.” “Good” has a standard, and the source of all good on earth derives from the very essence and being of God who is, in His essence, Good.
God works all things together for “good.” This means: “Good” as understood by Him. God Himself is the greatest Good. In that earthly things are good they reflect their Creator. If our lives are “good” they give glory to God. And this means that God is working all things together in our lives so that our lives give glory to God and point people to God.
Perhaps you have heard someone misuse Romans 8:28 like this: “OK, you may have lost your job, but God has a better job for you, because all things are working for your good.” The problem with this is that it’s far too narrow and, often, it’s self-centered and even materialistic. The ultimate good is God’s glory. And God is glorified when His children live as Jesus did and attain the glory He has destined them for. God may take us out of a secure, well-paying job in order to shake us out of a materialistic lifestyle that does not honor Him, and we may never have as good a job again. Of course God can include material blessings in the Romans 8:28 promise. But it is a mistake to define “good” in Romans 8:28 by what we want. The greatest good for you is your life used by God to glorify God. To bring people to a knowledge of God. Remember that God is not working to make us “happy” but to fulfill His purposes.
Paul is not saying that all things are good. He is saying all things are turned by God for good. This does not mean that God removes all suffering. It does mean that God takes the sufferings and works them together for good, which is glorifying to Him and accomplishes His purposes. "All Things" includes the "bad things"
Would God allow a person to suffer if it gave glory to Him and accomplished His purposes? Of course. Just look at Joseph and Job and Jonah and Paul. Esther suffered, but it was for “such a time as this” (Esther 4:14). Jesus suffered. And it was all worked out to the glory of God and for our eternal good. So let us love Him! And so we will be blessed with the phenomenal promise of Romans 8:28