Tag Archive

A few weekends ago we drove to the Bay Area for my wife’s family reunion. My brother-in-law, Dave, pastors a church in San Jose and so on Sunday we thought it would be a great chance to hear him speak and see his church. Well, as it would turn out, Dave was taking a break from the pulpit. We were bummed that we weren’t able to hear him. After the service we went outside and I saw two men sitting on the curb talking; one of them was obviously homeless. It warmed my heart to see him there and that someone from the church was taking the time to talk with him. But as I learned the story behind the man, my joy ran even deeper…

You see, the church had been talking to the city officials trying to build better partnership. The city said they would love to support the church more if the church committed to helping in three areas: the environment, the ??, and the homeless. The church agreed. During a meeting where the city officials came to the church to discuss the issues, they came to the topic of homelessness and were struggling to find practical and real ways to help. Just then a man entered the church and interrupted their meeting. He was homeless. Dave went out to talk with him.

The man began telling Dave how he started a garden where the other homeless people could come to help cultivate it and eat from their fruits. He continued to say how he was running into problems because the garden was on land that the Water District owned and they wanted him and his garden off of their property. Dave smiled and asked the man if he believed in miracles. He told him that in the meeting he had interrupted were city officials and church leadership wrestling with how to help the homeless in the city. The man was thrilled and began to discuss the notion of using some of the church’s “back-lot” for a garden. Dave said that would be a great idea and asked if the man would be willing to share his story to those in the other room. He did and Jesus smiled.

Fast forward a few days. Dave went to a little deli that he rarely goes to and sure enough, the homeless man was there. Dave asked him if he would join him for lunch. The man declined at first saying that he wasn’t hungry. Dave insisted and the man joined him for conversation but not a meal…he really wasn’t hungry. The man mentioned that what he really needed was a tarp. So Dave walked over to OSH with him and they bought a tarp. When they were leaving the man asked if he could keep the receipt because the police come by and if you have anything that looks new they ask for a receipt to make sure you didn’t steal it. If you don’t have a receipt, they take the “new” item away. Dave paused a minute and came to the place of trust and gave the man a receipt.

Fast forward a few days. The man came back to the church and told Dave that another person bought him a tarp and that he returned the tarp that Dave bought with him. He said that he should expect a refund on his credit card within a few days. Talk about stereotypes being shattered!

Right now they are in the process of figuring out the logistics for the church-homeless garden (they are located next to an elementary school so they have to see if they would be comfortable having homeless men and women hanging around while the kids were in school, etc). I love seeing churches rise above their needs to join Jesus in his mission of restoration. This is just one example I thought I’d share…

I was looking in my backyard today and noticed all the weeds that have been popping up. I sighed at the thought of going out there and uprooting them. What a pain. Seeing all those weeds got me thinking about Jesus’ words where he taught us not to pull up the “weeds”, but to instead let them grow and leave it to him. [See Matthew 13]

How bizarre and backwards is that? Ignore the weeds growing among us? Don’t pull them, chop them, poison them, kill them … but simply let them grow next to the flowers, in the grass, in the garden, in our yard? Absurd! To a gardener, such a suggestion would be foolishness. I offer that it is foolishness to religious people as well. So why would Jesus say such a thing?

A few reasons came to my mind…perhaps you have others.

The first is that we, as humans, have a very poor track record of recognizing weeds. Our perspective seems to be that anyone who looks or believes differently than we do is a weed. Certain prophets and Jesus come to mind in the Jewish history. Certain reformers (among many others) come to mind in our Christian history. In hindsight we see that the “weeds” we got rid of were perhaps not weeds at all. Our historical tendency has been to label weeds, “wheat”, and wheat, “weeds” and we have acted accordingly, praising the wheat-weeds and getting rid of the weed-wheats. Jesus, aware our proven biases and natural tendencies as human beings, said he’d handle the weeds and gave us the job of loving and serving them. Ugh…don’t you hate that?

Another reason is that it is not our place to pull, poison, chop and kill weeds. Even if we were able to judge correctly as humans (which we aren’t, but let’s pretend) who was a weed and who wasn’t, it is not our job to uproot them — it is Gods. Much like when my son feels it is his role to correct and boss around his younger sister. We simply tell him that she is not his concern and to leave his sister to us, her parents. It is not his role as a sibling to be a parent! But oh how he likes to take the parent-role anyhow.

We’re the same, aren’t we? We feel as if weed-control is our role. Jesus simply tells us that it is not our concern and to leave it to him. It is not our role as created humans to be God. And oh how we like to try to be God (we’ll of course never admit this, but if we were honest, it’s true…at least it is in me). We like to play judge and determine who is and who isn’t a weed and treat them according to their human-given label (which never works out to well for the “weeds”).

The last reason is our lack of trust, or even not wanting to really trust, in God. Our desire to exercise weed-control on our fellow humans reveals our lack of trust in God (again, something we’d never admit). We really don’t want to let go of judgment and give it to God (not that we ever really had it in the first place). What if God declares someone a “flower” who we think is a “weed”? (Funny thing is that our State Flower, the Golden Poppy, is in fact a weed). What if God really loves weeds and tells us to trust him because he knows we’ll get it wrong and raise havoc on his creation? What if God gets it wrong — that is, according to our thinking (theology) — and God lets all sorts of “weeds” into his presence? Do you see the problems trust creates in us? Do you see the questions and fears trust-in-God raises? At least, that is, for some.

For me, I have found great freedom in trying to relax my ingrown human need to judge and take on the task of weed-control. It’s not up to me. My job is to love and to serve everyone — everyone! — even my enemies (whom I tend to declare to be weeds). It is such a relief to let go of a burden I have self-imposed on myself and give it back to God. I was never designed to carry it. And God knew that, hence Jesus’ words.

So now that I no longer have to worry about labeling and pulling weeds, I need to get busy learning from God how to love and serve them.

On our way home the other night, I was having a great conversation with my son about God. I told him that there was nothing he could ever do that would cause God to love him any less fully than he does now. To help convey the point, I told him that even if he were to kill me, his dad—(twisted, I know)—that God would still fully love him. He thought about it and replied, “Even if I blew up the whole world, would God still love me?”

Don’t you just love 1st graders? How would you reply?

Here is how I replied. I told him (borrowing from Paul) yes, even if he blew up the whole world (good luck with that), even that would not separate him from the love God has for him. I then said, “And when you stand before God and realize that God really loves you, you will most likely fall to your knees (I know I would), in tears possibly, sorry for what you had done and he would embrace you as his child, whom he loves.” I realized that, yes, even God’s kindness can lead to repentance.

Later, I thought more about my answer and—recalling a certain parable—wondered if God would even run to Caleb while Caleb was still far away and hug Caleb and not stop kissing Caleb.

Now what “consequences” God might have in mind for my son who blew up the entire world—well, that’s between him and God, and is, quite frankly, none of my business. I’ll leave that to God’s loving wisdom.

This past Sunday, the church who we gather with verbally opened the communion table for some all to partake, for some all to experience the love and acceptance of Jesus through the elements—at his table, sharing his meal.

So I, too, dined. (click if you don’t know the back-story…)

It was refreshing.

I learned this from a friend recently:

Those who are truly broken find it hard to judge anyone, even those who had a hand in breaking them.

We all make choices. We all make interpretations. We all are led individually by the Holy Spirit. We all do the best we can with our three-pound brains and our built in, God-given human limitations. We all stake claims on our current understanding of God’s truth as revealed to us by his Holy Spirit through the bible, his creation, and ultimately through his son Jesus. And so tonight, I do so as well and stake my claim on my current understanding of God’s truth.

[In doing so, please realize that this is my human profession. By making it, I am not judging or condemning others who believe or understand God differently—we all see dimly and in part. This is simply a short, non-comprehensive statement of where I have been led and am choosing to stick my flag based on my limited, non-comprehensive human understanding. It is by no means all worked out without any issues with a tidy bow (whose belief/theology ever is?), nor do I believe it ever will be. I believe that when contemplating God, there will always be a substantial element of mystery and faith involved—if not, he would cease to be God, and I human. It is partly because of my human limitations and the mystery of God that my belief will continue to be shaped throughout my life. Currently, this is what I believe. If you don't agree with it, cool . . . that is not an expectation of mine. After all, I really believe that we will all show up with our three-pound brains before God and realize we all fell short, were in error, and misinterpreted his revelations to us to one degree or another, and even then he will show grace.]

If it helps, to understand biblically a bit more where I am coming from, I would highly encourage you to read this Word document referencing scripture before continuing: reconcilation-scriptures.doc

I believe and stand on the mountain of God’s abundant grace and love for all of humanity. That through the blood and sacrifice of Jesus, God’s justice was met and the punishment for all sin was paid in full—canceled. That because of God’s love for his kids and the reconciliation that was made through Jesus, God has forgiven all. That forgiveness is his decision alone to make and it is not dependent on our response. That a person’s belief does not trigger God’s forgiveness, but rather their belief allows them to experience and walk in God’s love and the reality of their God-declared forgiven state. That God is able to extend his love and grace even after a person’s death. That death indeed lost its victory and sting, and God is not hindered one bit by our death in extending his mercy. If God was hindered by our death, then our death would ultimately be more powerful than God. That one day, every knee shall bow (repentance) and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (worship), and on that day God will not say, “That’s great and all, but there’s nothing I can do, my hands are tied. Sorry, you died—you’re too late.” That even then man can still reject him, but I find it awfully hard to imagine them doing so given the God-reality they are now experiencing. That if rejected, God will honor their decision and what happens after that I will let God worry about. That God, in his infinite love, is just wild enough to redeem, reconcile, and restore all things to himself. That in the end, God’s love for his kids wins and we will get to join in and celebrate his victory over death and sin, and embrace our dad. That in the end, mercy indeed triumphs over judgment.

I believe that on this earth, sin still has its deadly and destructive consequences, and that God, out of his love and for the purpose of restoration, disciplines his kids. That those who ‘believe’ on earth get to begin enjoying God’s love and kingdom-life here and now, and have the honor of being God’s kingdom-vessels in both word and deed here on earth . That the good news perhaps is not, “You can be forgiven in Jesus if you believe” (which is good news to be sure), but, “You are forgiven through and by Jesus, do you believe?” That the burden of humanity’s souls is God’s burden. Our job is the declaration of forgiveness, to love God (who first loves us), to love ourselves (because he loves us), and out of God’s love we are to love our fellow brothers and sisters who happen to share the same tiny globe as us, who happen to be created by the same one and only God as us, and who happen to be loved by God as we are. That it is our joy and privilege, as pre-death embracers of God’s love and forgiveness, to love and spread the good news that man is forgiven and loved by a God—their Daddy—who is love. That through love, their image of God, themselves, and others will begin to be restored. That we can join arms and follow Jesus’ example and the Holy Spirit’s leading in bringing God’s Kingdom to earth as it is in heaven. That our highest call is love. It is on the mountain of God’s incomprehensible love and Jesus’ all-encompassing blood that I stand, come what may.

I echo the words of John Bunyan, the author of Pilgrim’s Progress, who said, “I will stay in Jail ’till the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.” And the spirit of Martin Luther when he said, “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.”

And if I error, I will error on the side of God’s grace and love—for all.

“For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation.” Col 1:19-22

The scales from my eyes just fell (thanks to a story in Chapter 3 of The New Christians about Frank the truck driver). Matthew 18 contains in it a notorious passage often used to expel—or in the old days, excommunicate—someone from the church if they unrepentantly continued to sin. It lists the steps a church should take to restore a brother or sister in sin. The very last step is listed in verse 17 where it says,

People read that as a command from Jesus to expel that person from the church (I know I always have). But these are Jesus’ words and how did Jesus treat pagans and tax collectors? He dined with them, he embraced them, he healed them, he gave dignity back to them, he loved them, he forgave them.

WHAT?! Could it be?

When Frank, while meditating on this passage, realized what it might be saying he began scouring other English translations and he found the Message,

So even with sinful and unrepentant believers we are to extend the same amount of love and embrace as we would an unbeliever walking into our church for the first time? Seems to line up with Jesus’ example and his words to forgive 490+ times.

Wow. After I sweep up my eye-scales from off the floor I think I will go to sleep on that note of grace. Thanks Frank!

I often wonder what Jesus’ words would be if he came to our culture, in our time. Perhaps this:

One time a Bible scholar stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to receive eternal life?”

“What is written in the Bible?” he replied? “How do you read it?”

He answered, “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“You’re correct,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you’ll live.”

But wanting to justify himself he asked Jesus, “And just who is my neighbor?”

Jesus answered with a story:

“A man was walking when some muggers got a hold of him. Stripping him naked, they took all he had, beat him just shy of death and left him for dead.

“A Pastor came and when he saw the beaten man, he crossed the street to avoid him.

“So too, a Church Elder, when he came to the beaten man, crossed the street avoiding him.

“But a Muslim, as he traveled, came to where the beaten man was; and when he saw him he felt compassion for him. He approached him and treated his wounds. He brought him to the hospital and stayed with him for the night. Leaving the next day, he gave the hospital his information and some money, saying, ‘Take care of him. I need to go out of town. Send me the bill and when I return I will pay you for his complete treatment.’

“Of these three men, who was a neighbor to the man who was left for dead by thieves?”

The Biblical expert said, “The one who showed mercy to him.”

Jesus said, “Then go and follow his example.”

For us, perhaps the Bible’s header for Jesus’ story would read: The Good Muslim.

INSPIRATIONAL SOURCE: Gospel of Luke, The Parable of the Good Samaritan

God seems anything but balanced. At least that is what Jesus seemed to think and teach. I hear this often (or along these lines): “I know God is love, but you can’t sway too far to that side—you have to keep him in balance.” Most of us want a God who is balanced. One who doesn’t stray too far to the side of vengeance or to the side of love. One who finds a nice comfortable spot in the middle and firmly plants himself there, never to be moved. A lot of us want a moderate God, a middle of the road God.

But fortunately for us humans, that God does not exist.

Instead, we have a reckless God. An extreme God. A far-leaning-to-one-side God. Daddy is excessive. He’s wild. He’s unreasonable. He’s unfair. He’s unwarranted. He’s a fanatic who is insane, hell-bent, unbridled, unrestrained, uninhibited, and a borderline lunatic when it comes to loving and forgiving us humans—his kids.

To Jesus, God is a field manager who hired a bunch of workers at different times throughout the day—some working all day and others for only an hour—and paid them all the same! Some complained he was not being fair.

God is a scorned old father who at the mere glimpse of his wayward son (who, by the way, wished his father dead) off in hazy distance, hiked up his robe, ran to him, embraced him and could not stop kissing him; he then killed the best calf, put a ring and robe on him, and partied for days! The respectful older son was jealous, complaining too that the situation was not fair.

God is a shepherd who left 99 sheep in the open field—abandoning them—to go chase one worthless (in our eyes) sheep that ran away! Talk about reckless.

God is a banquet host who, when the invited guests did not show up, went into the streets inviting the outcast, the homeless, the crippled, the sinful, the lepers, the AIDS stricken, the mentally disabled and a whole other mess of his kids who were rejected, to a banquet with the finest food, the best china, the most expensive wine (you get the picture)—for free, with no hope of receiving anything from them in return! A tad excessive.

God is a woman who lost a coin and tore apart her house day and night looking for it, and when she finally found it she threw a party! Fanatic comes to mind.

God is a pearl collector who found a pearl and then sold everything he owned to purchase it! He is also a chum who found a treasure in some field and in turn sold everything as well to buy the field! Sure, they have their pearl and “treasure”, but now they are homeless and on welfare. Picture a friend of yours doing that…lunatic, no?

God is a king who let off the hook a guy who owed him $3,000,000,000—three billion dollars!—free and clear, not owing a thing! Who does this if not someone who is insane? (Yes, I know that the forgiven man then went out and demanded five dollars from a buddy and threw him in jail when he couldn’t pay, and yes, when the king heard of this he called the forgiven man back before him and threw him in jail because he refused to love as the king loves, to forgive as the king forgives).

And on and on Jesus went describing a God who was anything but balanced when it came to love. But he not only described it, he also lived it. He touched the untouchable, talked to the untalkable, forgave the unforgivable, ate and drank with sinners, healed the cursed, and went crazy when it came to love! (He also had some pretty harsh words to say for those who labeled, judged, and condemned all of the above, but I offer that even his harsh words flowed completely out of love for even them!)

So is God balanced? Thankfully not. But what about justice? Listen, since God is way unbalanced towards the side of love (which to him isn’t even a side) then any loving decision he makes is just, because God is the measure of justice, not us. In the end, his love-justice will probably seem terribly unjust to us—even me! Perhaps our “unjust” feelings will be more of a light shed onto our screwed up idea of “justice” than anything else.

Its funny, when it comes to God’s extravagant, unfair love and forgiveness, we freely believe and claim it for ourselves. It is when it applies universally to others, especially all the non-deserving (whoever that is for you), that we get hung up.

I am sure a large majority of us Christians (perhaps myself included) will whine much like my seven year-old son does: “But that’s not fair! I did this and that. I believed this and that. I served you. I…I…I… What did they do? Why do they get the same thing we get? Who are they that they should be called sons of God? Why do you love them? It’s not fair!” (Sounds awfully like a few parables, doesn’t it?)

Perhaps God will respond much like I do when my son enters into his whiny it’s-not-fair-mode, simply and calmly saying . . . “I know.”

Perhaps he’ll add, “Are you envious because I am generous?”

I am so glad that Jesus painted a picture of God who is anything but balanced. I am glad that Daddy is not moderate. That he’s reckless, extreme, far-leaning-to-one-side, excessive, wild, unreasonable, unfair, hell-bent, unbridled, unrestrained, uninhibited, and a borderline lunatic when it comes to loving and forgiving us humans; his kids.

Aren’t you?

May I follow my Daddy’s lead…

~ Dad,

Tune my heart to sing your grace.

~ Your little boy.

There is a fictional story Jesus told which cuts deep into our heart by exposing his heart. He loved using the medium of story in order to reveal what his kingdom is really like and how much it differs from our ways of thinking. He begins by saying, “The Kingdom of God is like…

…a manager who goes out very early in the morning to hire some men to work his fields. He tells them he will pay them a day’s wage for their work. They agree. Around 9:00am the manager leaves them and goes back into the center of town (probably next to the Home Depot) and sees more men standing around unemployed. He told them to get to work and he would pay them fairly. He did the same thing at 12:00pm and 3:00pm. At 5:00, near the end of the work day, he found still more men standing around. He asked them, “Why have you been standing around all day doing nothing (loosely translated, “wasting you life away”)?”

They answered, “Because no one has hired us” (loosely translated, “we suck and nobody wants us”). He told them to go work in his field. An hour later when the day was over, he called his foreman to him and told him to pay the workers, starting from the last hired working down to the first.

Those hired at 5:00 were given a day’s wage for an hours work. When those hired first saw that, they assumed they would get paid far more. But they all got the same pay—each and every one of them. They grabbed their money and grumbled angrily (highly pissed) to the manager. Their appointed spokesperson said, “These workers worked for one measly hour and you have made them equal to us, who slaved all day long under the scorching sun.

(Now listen to Jesus’ response and really pay close attention to his words) “Friend, I haven’t been unfair. We agreed on a day’s wage, didn’t we? So take it and go. I decided to give the ones who came last the same as you. Can’t I do what I want with my own money? Are you going to get jealous because I am generous?

“Here it is again, The Great Reversal: many of the first ending up last, and the last first.”

So here’s the rub for me. I really, honestly think that we are going to be very surprised at the end of the age when Jesus begins paying the “others” with his grace. I really do.

And when we see the “others” being offered the same grace as us—the more “deserving”, for whatever reason, be it belief or works—we will first think he is going to give us so much more then them. But when he doesn’t, when he gives us the exact same measure of grace, we too will probably begin grumbling and complaining. “They don’t deserve it!!”

And he will still call us friend. And he will still extend his grace to us saying, “Take it and come.” And he too will lovingly chastise us, saying, “I decided to give the ‘others’ the same as you. Can’t I do what I want with MY love, grace, and forgiveness? Are you jealous because I am generous?”

What do we have to loose, honestly, if he turns out to be much more generous with his grace (or love, or forgiveness, or acceptance…what ever word you want to use) than we could have ever imagined?

Why do we get jealous and angry at the thought of a generous God?

Is it not his to do whatever he wants to with it?

He seems to think so, may also we.

It is hard to say for certain why the medieval church had a preoccupation with sin—fear, money, control…perhaps—but it is fairly obvious that an entire religious system was built around this preoccupation. It seems, in fact, that one of the church’s primary roles was dealing with sin. Professions were built around it. The rich could hire personal confessors to help them cleanse themselves from sin. Indulgences would be sold. They would pay clergy to say personal masses in order to soften God’s heart towards their sin. Relics could be bought to earn a certain level of spirituality.

Their theology seemed to feed a well thought out financial system. There seemed to be no teaching about the absolute assurance of God’s forgiveness. All of the religious services that people purchased just temporarily dealt with sin; or made it more likely that God might let them into heaven; or possibly lessen their time in purgatory. The purchases never completely, fully, once-and-for-all cleansed sin…nor was it taught, it seems, that such a cleansing was even possible. After all, if sin was completely forgiven, then how could the church still make money off of selling sin-cleansing services? So the theology they adopted helped support the religious system they created. In order to maintain it and survive, they had to teach: “There is no absolute forgiveness of sins. The best one can hope for is just barely getting in…maybe. And that ‘maybe’ will cost you X amount…for now.” Self-preservation of the system—and those who benefited from it—perpetuated a theology of fear and uncertainty; freedom from which could be purchased from the local church.

I honestly do not see any benefits that come from such a focus, save perhaps a false sense of righteousness and a real sense of fear. To focus on sin and God’s wrath creates only an atmosphere of fear or anger. But where such an atmosphere exists, people can be manipulated and controlled. Their fear can be leveraged into doing all sorts of things and giving great amounts of money to appease God’s anger and lessen their fear. No restoration fully comes. No redemption is fully realized. Grace is not extended, because to do so would mean the loss of an income. Absolute forgiveness is not declared, because to do so would mean to say goodbye to a personal self-kingdom of power and authority.

So they teach the people to remain fearful of God and thankful to the church that it is doing everything it can to help them please God and attain his favor. They teach them, “God is against you, you sinner; but lucky you, the church is for you! WE are for you!!” As long as the church can keep the people believing that God is against them and the church is for them—doing all it can as Christ’s Bride to beg this angry God on their behalf—they will pay tooth-and-nail for its help. And pay they did.

Perhaps today, for some, the preoccupation on sin has changed. But I see the underlining fault as this: holding to a theology in order that established systems of religion can be protected and maintained, and that those benefiting from such systems can continue too benefit. Today, at least in America, a theology that supports the selling of sin-cleansing services just wouldn’t fly. So we adopt other, more “acceptable” theologies that support our system—same root problem, just a different focus and different words. Today (though I do not think the element of fear is completely done away with) we imply, “If you really loved God, then you would do such-and-such.” Or we just flat-out say, “Because he commands it”…or …“You’ll be rewarded”…or…“He loves a cheerful giver,” to financially support our stuff.

We are no less sinful than they were.

We need his grace no less then they did.

He loves us no less.

Post 2 of 2

If you haven’t already, please pause and read post 1. I am still in process over this and have been for some time…

My journey with this passage began about a year ago. I was reading a book written by a Calvinist who believed in the 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP) and it got me thinking about where the doctrine of Total Depravity stemmed from (inherited sin nature, fallenness of man, etc.). So I wanted to see which passages they sited for that doctrine…which led me to the Presbyterian Book of Confessions. It was here (and some other sources) that I discovered that Romans 5 was the main source (even more that Genesis, which lists only specific consequences for Adam and Eve’s sin). So I went to read Romans 5. Rightfully so, according to the text, they applied the consequences of Adam’s sin across the board to all of humanity, regardless of belief, religion…even over those who have not hypothetically ever sinned (such as a newborn)! Verse 18a, namely, was the main verse cited for this doctrine. But then I read the verse in its context and that is when I saw an apparent double-standard of interpretation being applied to the passage as a whole, at times even within the same sentences of thought.

So with a little bit of that background, let me share my answers to the questions. (Note: The questions are referencing this document Adam / Jesus in Romans 5 )

1. What column does Paul seem to be emphasizing? 2nd. Based on his words, Paul seems to be emphasizing the work of Jesus. The term “How much more” is repeated 5 times, almost like a bell. Then twice, he says that the “gift is not like the tresspass”, but is so much more!
2. Which column does Paul seem to be saying has more power? 2nd. The emphasis on “How much more”, plus his emphasis on how Jesus is our Lord and God (not a created being like Adam) says that Jesus’ work of reconciliation and justification has the power over Adam’s work of death and condemnation.
3. Which column does Paul seem to be saying trumps the other column? 2nd. Again, it seems clears whose actions overcame the others’.
4. Which column do you interpret as Good News? 2nd. Paul almost seems to be shouting, “Do you see how bad it is because of sin and Adam? It’s horrible. But look at was done through Jesus!! What fantastic news that where sin increased, grace increased ALL THE MORE!!”
5. Which column applies to “all men”…to “the many“? Both. It is one passage that uses the same exact, identical words to show how Adam’s sin applied to all men and that Jesus’ reconciliation applied to all men. Again, just letting the passage speak without us bringing in our pre-conceived ideas to it.
6. Which column is the result of a created man’s actions? 1st: Adam
7. Which column is the result of God’s actions? 2nd: Jesus

_______________________________________________________________

1. Which column do we traditionally apply to people whether they believe it or not? 1st: Adam
2. Which column do we traditionally apply regardless of what they do or not do? 1st: Adam
3. Which column do we traditionally say that a human only has to be born into this world to have it apply to them? 1st: Adam
4. Which column do we traditionally apply to only the people who believe it is true? 2nd: Jesus
5. Which column do we traditionally apply to all people? 1st: Adam
6. Which column do we traditionally apply to only some people? 2nd: Jesus
7. If we say one column applies to all people, and the other to only some, then based on this, which column do we traditionally say has more power (though perhaps we would never say it)? 1st: Adam. Again, not based on what we would ever say, but based on how we APPLY these two column.

________________________________________________________________

What do you see? I see that what Paul is saying, based on his words and emphasis, does not line up with how we traditionally apply the implications and words of this text.

What stands out? The words HOW MUCH MORE and THE GIFT IS NOT LIKE THE TRESPASS. Plus the exact tit-for-tat interplay between Adam’s work compared to Jesus’ work. Also, “How much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies (which we view today as people who do not believe in or follow him), we were reconciled to him through the death of his son.” When were we reconciled?…when we were still his enemies!! Not after we said yes to his freindship, but while we were still spitting at him…that is WHEN he reconciled us. Wow…hmmmm. Crazy.

What inconsistencies are there, if any? “All men” and “the many” are not equally applied. If fact, the traditional emphasis of these words (applying them universally only to Adam’s sin) seems to flip-flop Paul’s intended emphasis of “How much more” the reconciliation and grace of Jesus is to “All men” and “the many”. Paul uses the same exact words for both columns and yet we apply them completely differently. Sin=all men. Reconciliation=some men.

Do your answers line up with what Paul was saying? It does not seem like it. Quite the opposite, actually.

Do you see a dual-standard being applied to this verse? Meaning, do we interpret and apply parts of this passage one way, then apply and interpret other parts another way, sometimes within the same sentence? It absolutely seems to be the case. You cannot have it both ways. If you apply “all men” and “the many” regarding sin (condemnation, judgement, death, etc) to every human being that is born regardless of anything they believe or do, then you HAVE to apply the “all men” and “the many” regarding reconciliation (forgiveness, grace, pardon, etc) to every human being that is born regardless of anything the believe or do. You CANNOT apply one, one way then turn around and apply the other, another way. They are the same words in the same sentences. Same way with the other alternative. If you do not apply “all men”and “the many” to everyone, regardless (like we do with Jesus’ work), then you HAVE to apply “all men” and “the many” the same way in regards to the effects of Adam’s sin, that it does not apply to everyone, regardless. Do you see the dilemma this passage and our traditional application of it creates? Something is not right.

What was you experience like doing this exercise? Frustrating and, “oh my God…what IS this passage saying?”

How were you stretched? Still being stretched.

Are there any new conclusions or insights you have drawn? It has opened up the possibility that how Paul viewed Jesus’ work of grace and reconciliation is SOOOOOOO much bigger and glorious than I had EVER imagined!!

___________________________________________________________

So you see why I hate/love this passage (and the others that say the same thing)? Again, much of what we believe to be true is simply what we have been taught, which is what they were taught, which is what they were taught, and slowly belief evolves into what it is today. How would the first century church and those in Rome understood this passage? How did Paul explain it when he was with them? How might we be misinterpreting words and their meanings based on our understanding as white, 30 something, middle-class, evangelical Christians, in a high-tech, rich urban culture, in the world’s most powerful nation 2000 years later? We have to ask these questions…

My question is this. Based on this passage, why do we believe (and find it easy to do so) that what Adam did, universally and automatically effects more humans (every human in fact) than what Jesus did…and we believe Jesus is God? That a man—a man!—and his decision to rebel has more of an effect on the whole of humanity than God himself does through Jesus and his decision to redeem and forgive?

What I am saying does not gel with certain Christian faith traditions (though there are some traditions that would say, “Jeromy, this is nothing new…we’ve believed this all along”). But this thought of a man impacting humanity in a greater way than Jesus does not gel with anything I believe.

I’m sure it is up for debate, but just about every source says Paul’s audience for Romans was a Gentile one. Meaning Romans 5 was written for unbelievers. This letter was a pre-cursor to Paul’s missionary journey to Rome and so the Gospel of Jesus had not even been introduced in Rome. Some say this was their first introduction to the gospel. Which makes sense as you read its message from cover to cover…”We are so bad and deserve nothing….but look what God did and who he is…now let’s celebrate and learn how to live in Jesus….by the way, I’ll see you soon.” Food for thought…

[UPDATE 3/14/08 : Though God's reconciliation (forgiveness, grace, pardon, etc.) seems to apply to all men (humanity wise, not gender), mankind still needs to receive and believe in the fact that God has forgiven them. In a sense, mankind needs to step into the truth that they are forgiven and loved. By mankind hearing and believing this truth does not trigger God's forgiveness (as if God says, "Oh good, now I can forgive you...thanks!"), it simply allows them to walk in and enjoy their already God-declared forgiven state.

Think of it this way, when my son does something terrible, I forgive and love him unconditionally (Do I still discipline him with the goal of restoration in mind?...In love, yes). My love and forgiveness is not dependent on anything he says or does. However, when I tell him I love and forgive him, his belief and reception of that releases him from self-condemnation and the allusion that I do not love or forgive him. As his dad, as far as I am concerned he is free and clear from my condemnation and wrath—he's loved and forgiven. Can he still reject my love and forgiveness? Sadly, yes.

Mankind, when standing before God and hearing (perhaps for the first time) that they are forgiven and loved through Jesus, can still reject him and say, "That's fine, but I still want nothing to do with you." And God—despite declaring them loved and forgiven—will not force them to love him and I believe will honor their desire to not be in his presence.

Appendix: Other “All Men” passages

1 Timothy 2:4
…who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:6
…
who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

1 Timothy 4:10
…(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

Titus 2:11
…For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

John 12:32
…
But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.”

Romans 5:18
…
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.]

Post one of two…

Warning: Long post ahead.

Chapter five in Romans is the pivotal point of Paul’s letter. Everything prior is building up to it. Everything after is a celebration and a fleshing out of its conclusions. It’s conclusions and intent are direly important to the message of Romans that Paul is trying to communicate. To me, it is one of the most powerful and life-giving chapters in the entire Bible. But I need help. There seems to be a double-standard being applied in the traditional interpretation of its meaning.

For the sake of focus and time, I am looking primarily at verses 9-21. I chose to include the entire Text in this post, as opposed to only referencing it. I also removed the verse markers so it would read more like a letter. As you read this, allow scripture and Paul’s words to speak. This might be a familiar passage, but really listen to what it is saying. Read slowly. Chew on it. Read each word, each sentence. Don’t filter. Meditate on it if you’d like.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

For the sake of ease and understanding, I uploaded a Word Doc (Adam / Jesus in Romans 5) that organizes both of Paul’s “thought-threads” into columns. Please open and read it for reference. Each column mirrors the other so read it like a book; top-left, then over to the right, then back to the left and down…etc. The emphasis is mine (though I offer it might be Paul’s too). (Now is the time when you open and read the linked Doc…I’ll wait ).

Now that you have read the linked Doc (you’ll need to in order to answer the questions), let’s continue. In this first post I am simply going to pose questions (you are welcome to pose yours as well in your comments); in the post to follow, I will share my answers and thoughts. These are the questions that I have personally asked of the text and invite you to do the same. Let me encourage you to pull out a pen and paper (or Word Doc) and write down your answers. Again, don’t jump to a hasty answer, really think about it and let scripture speak to you:

1. What column does Paul seem to be emphasizing?
2. Which column does Paul seem to be saying has more power?
3. Which column does Paul seem to be saying trumps the other column?
4. Which column do you interpret as Good News?
5. Which column applies to all men…to the many?
6. Which column is the result of a created man’s actions?
7. Which column is the result of God’s actions?

Those were the easy questions for me, now for the tough ones (same answering rules apply as with the previous ones…no cheating):

1. Which column do we traditionally apply to people whether they believe it or not?
2. Which column do we traditionally apply regardless of what they do or not do?
3. Which column do we traditionally say that a human only has to be born into this world to have it apply to them?
4. Which column do we traditionally apply to only the people who believe it is true?
5. Which column do we traditionally apply to all people?
6. Which column do we traditionally apply to only some people?
7. If we say one column applies to all people, and the other to only some, then based on this, which column do we traditionally say has more power (though perhaps we would never say it)?

Now compare your answers from the first set to the second set.

• What do you see?
• What stands out?
• What inconsistencies are there, if any?
• Do your answers line up with what Paul was saying?
• Do you see a dual-standard being applied to this verse? Meaning, do we interpret and apply parts of this passage one way, then apply and interpret other parts another way, sometimes within the same sentence?
• What was you experience like doing this exercise?
• How were you stretched?
• Are there any new conclusions or insights you have drawn?

The reason I am leaving my answers and thoughts for another post is so not to influence or skew your process or answers. I want you do go on a journey of “self-discovery” not “Jeromy-discovery” (I am not insinuating that God’s spirit is not involved in your, or my, journey of discovery).

I would love to hear your answers, questions and thoughts regarding this.

Painted in 1601 at age 28

Painted in 1606 at age 33

Above are two paintings by the same artist, Caravaggio, of the same theme, Supper at Emmaus, but painted in two different seasons of Caravaggio’s life. These paintings are based on Luke 24 when two disciples come to recognize Jesus, resurrected, during a meal. Though similar, it is their subtle differences that are intriguing.

I encourage you to meditate on them and really look at the details. Compare and contrast the two. How do they feel? What’s different? Why did Caravaggio revisit this theme? What are they saying to you? Why did he make the changes? What was he trying to communicate about Jesus and that scene? How is God speaking to you personally through these paintings.

I invite you share your heart and thoughts so we can be encouraged, learn, and be shaped by one another. (Hint: There are no right or wrong answers).

I had a very disturbing dream last night. Not frightening, disturbing. Disturbing in the sense that the personal ramifications of the dream could be great.

I dreamt I went through each of the Gospels of Jesus and saw a common theme regarding good deeds and spiritual faith. The shift this created was paradigmatic. I then turned to one of my fiends and posed them the very question that disturbed me: “If one person has ALL, or a lot of, CHRISTIAN FAITH (i.e. correct Christian/Biblical doctrine, proper church involvement, etc.), but NO DEEDS (as defined by the Jesus and the Bible), and another person had NO, or little, CHRISTIAN FAITH but ALL DEEDS; which of these would be ushered into heaven, by Jesus? Which one, according to Jesus and the gospels? Which one, according to the current church theology adopted from the Reformation?” The look on his face was one of bewilderment. “Well, according to Jesus and the Gospels, the second person. According to us, the first.”

In other words, my friend was saying this:We believe a person can “come to faith” in Jesus, then never lift a finger to bring God’s goodness and grace to Earth and Jesus will usher them into heaven by the skin of their teeth (all be it without any heavenly treasure or jewels). But someone who has never “come to faith”, but devoted and sacrifices his life to bring God’s goodness and grace (after all, isn’t all goodness and grace is God’s?) to a hurting and unjust world will be condemned to Hell by Jesus. In essence, a person who identifies with the “name” of Jesus but does not follow the “way” (deeds, example, teachings) of Jesus is saved. A saved person can be a person who is ALL faith and NO deeds….or all TALK and no WALK. For, after all, it is by faith you are saved and not by works. But it is impossible for someone with ALL deeds and NO faith (as we define it) to be saved. The “prayer of faith” and proper belief is all that matters when it comes to entrance in heaven…so we believe. But Jesus seemed to teach and live differently.

But as you listen to Jesus and read the gospels looking for this theme, you see a completely different picture. In fact, the picture seems reversed. I am still in process with this issue and will be for some time, but a few unresolved questions popped to my mind as a result to this dream (after all, I just had the dream last night).

Have we, to a fault, idolized the “theology of faith” that was born out of the Reformation over the life and teachings of Jesus?

Do we interpret the life and teachings of Jesus through the words of Paul, John, Peter and the like, rather than interpreting Paul, John, and Peter through Jesus’s words and example?

Have we created a church culture based on “cheap grace” and/or election, where faith is all that matters?

Have we created a bar-code faith, where, come judgment, all humanity is put on a conveyer belt and God scans our brains looking for the “bar-code of faith”, those who have it are in, those who do not are out––regardless of their life lived?

Do we dismiss Jesus’ obvious teachings about obedience, deeds, and justice being paramount criteria for entrance into the Kingdom because they do not mesh with OUR theology?

Is the cost of discipleship too high or uncomfortable that we have created a system where “correct” faith and belief trump discipleship and justice?

I cannot get over this.A “faith” that does nothing literally DOES NOTHING.But a “non-faith” that does something literally DOES SOMETHING.So based on Jesus’ parables, teachings and the Gospels, which does Jesus seem to indicate God values more?

Revisit the Gospels with me and lets dialogue together…