A thought from the Beatitudes

"But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, so do to them" - Jesus, The Beatitudes (Luke 6:22-23).

Lately I have been reading through the Gospel of Luke, and as you can probably guess I have come to the Beatitudes. As I began reading through I was struck by how much I usually gloss over them. I mean, here are the actual words of God incarnate, and I skip over them as just something Jesus said on his way to the cross to give ME salvation. I am not trying to devalue the cross in any way, but I did realize that I do not take Jesus' actual words seriously enough in the here and now of life. This problem, I think, extends into the evangelical church at large.

A good example of this is, I think, would be the general attitude many (including myself) have had towards giving to the homeless. A common excuse for not giving money to the homeless goes something along the lines of "he'll just use it for alcohol", or "how do I know she won't just buy drugs?". But I think our attitude is all wrong. Christ says, "Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back". As I read this I am struck by how this runs contrary to the many of us in the west think and act. Jesus is showing us a way to live in which selflessness and humble giving are to be ruling principles, yet many of us in the church would balk at such a statement were it made today, and rule it out as "liberal tripe" or "the shallow Social Gospel of the left". We might say, "I have to work and I don't beg so its not fair or right for others to do so!" or "Why would I give up MY cash to a lazy beggar?!".  It seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong, that we listen more to the underlying philosophies of the enlightenment which stress our INDIVIDUAL rights, and we skip over these parts of the Gospel we claim to believe, which blatantly clash with our self -centered worldview. 

When I look at what Jesus said, did, and who he was I see someone who would be very unhappy with the western world and how we live our lives. I see him not just promoting or advocating, but commanding with heavenly authority to practice compassion, grace, and humility with totally lack of regard for the self and full regard for others. And when I see this I realize that I am guilty of not just disobeying, but flat out ignoring these commands. And I figure that just maybe many others in the western church may want to think about this too. . .

They Like Jesus But Not The Church: Thoughts regarding Faith, Emerging Generations, and Post-Christianity

Dan Kimball's latest book They Like Jesus But Not The Church is a book, which I feel every Christian should be reading or listening to. Although the title has gained some criticism, a friend of mine thought Kimball was implying that Christians could love Christ but not his bride (the church), I have found in it's pages words of truth regarding the spiritual state of my generation, and how the American church has responded. Maybe this all is starting to sound presumptuous, but let me say that Kimball is very sensitive to the church and does not criticize just to criticize. I will also say that in the conversations I have every week with people who are not Christians the words in this book are proven true again and again, and I have become increasingly aware of the post-Christian world in which we are all now engaged. While this may seem horrible to say, I think the fact that the world has rejected the traditional American/Christian ideals is a very good thing, and in fact more helpful to young evangelicals such as myself who see ourselves not in the midst of a culture war, but in the midst of life with friends and relatives who are seeking something real, authentic, and overtly spiritual to believe in. 

I think the part that really sticks out to me is how many of the people who are not Christians, in the book, view the Church as being just flat out ignorant and very uninformed regarding other religions and faiths. I have to confess, until this point I had a very basic knowledge of other faiths, but I had never taken the time to really study, and put myself into the human aspect of another religion's practice. I had never really read the Qur’an (I am at this moment) and tried to picture myself in a Muslim's shoes, searching for the answer to the great emptiness that is separation from God, and finding this different explanation. I think that the man in Kimball's book is right to a certain extent. We speak of other faiths as almost petty, low, and in some cases just stupid, when in fact we should be engaging them, viewing them not with contempt or condescending tones, but as another people's best explanation of life, answers to life's biggest questions, and an attempted fulfillment of the infinite longing for God. It is only when we come down and meet people with respect, that we as followers of the triune God can begin sharing the story of The father, the Son, and the holy Spirit, which holds all truth and mystery and life for all people. 

Moving Past The Instruction Manual

A Continuation Of A Changed Biblical Perspective: It seems that the more I learn the more I see how language is the key to any discussion. What I have always thought scripture to be, for example, was anchored in large part on how I was defining the various words and phrases such as, inerrant and God's word. Also from these definitions came my various doubts, disagreements, and (more often than the previous) a weird almost spiritual kind of discomfort whenever I would refer to the Bible as "the word of God".  

Inerrant word of God always seems to mean, when used by the average Evangelical, the clear spoken law and picture of God that is all truth, authoritative, and in some cases literally the word of God. There is no room for error or uncertainty and to question this means you are on a slippery path towards liberalism, and/or falling from faith (It makes me smile that those two should be associated with each other). It seems to me that this view of scripture is fine as long the overarching perspective from which it comes is addressed with a little more detail. Taken by one individual, this definition could mean that the Bible was literally spoken by God to an individual human being who then transcribed it onto paper (or papyrus... what have you). 

The problem I have had, until recently, was identifying that perspective. Where was I coming from, and what did I mean when I defined the Bible as God's inerrant word? A common view regarding what the Bible is would be the answer book/roadmap model which I mentioned in a previous post. It is the approach to scripture that is the foundation of this model that I, and I believe all Christians must move past.

The Transition: Although I knew that the Bible was not an instruction manual for life, I was defining my terms as if it were. I could not reconcile how the Bible could be 100% inerrant and authoritative. How could the "inspired" letters of Paul be taken just as authoritative as those words of Jesus Christ himself? And it seemed to me that our methods of viewing the Bible stripped it of its mystery since what we did not understand we would almost discard. The problem for me, and I think for a lot of young Christians, had been that I was approaching the Bible with mixed assumptions (Postmodern vs. modern?). I knew I could not say the Bible was literally the word of God in the way a lot of Evangelicals would, yet I had no way of verbalizing

my frustration that I knew the Bible was the word of God but not in the way it had been presented to me. The problem was in how I was approaching the Bible. My approach had been tainted by a definitional allegiance to the answer book model. I did not hold that model but since it was the only solid picture I had ever been presented with it was hard to disassociate from certain terms in that tradition. I was so rigid and rooted in my own modern method of reading and understanding books that although I knew when and where the Bible came from, my process of seeking answers was from a completely different method of understanding. My mental picture (if one was even possible) needed to change, and as it changed I began to see my perspective shift from the Instruction book model into something much more useful, mysterious, and in a way more certain (paradox?).  It is this new perspective on scripture (which I know is not really new at all) that will be addressed in my next post. Until then!

-Luke

Sola Scriptura!: Changing Biblical Perspectives

I must begin this post by saying that my own views regarding how the Bible should be viewed have been moving back and forth for some time now. Coming from a more conservative Southern Baptist upbringing I had always been, and still am, told that the Bible is the inherent word of God. Beyond this there was never any real explanation as to how or why it is the word of God, and as I grew older and progressed in my public education the idea of a book written by many different authors, including books whose authors are unknown, being the ultimate written expression of God, seemed both highly improbable and illogical. Add onto this the fact that it was put together some 300 years after Jesus Christ was crucified and it posed quite the intellectual problem for my faith. As I moved past the basic historical issues and discovered that realm of Christian Apologia, I was then forced to ask myself a question that to this day I have only begun to answer: Is the Bible inherent, and where does it fit into my faith? To most traditional Christians this would seem a question not worth asking because it is just simple fact that the Bible is breathed of God quite literally and is God's instruction manual, answer book, and road map to life. . . I think however that those Christians who would offer such a response have neither proper understanding of what scripture is, or what they are even saying when they use the terms inherent and God's word. 

I do not know if what I will offer will be of any value, but I sincerely hope that you will read, critique, and contribute to this important conversation, as it is an issue which I am positive we can always learn more. Until tomorrow!

- Luke