Tag Archive

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.

The Bible is incomplete. It is. That’s not bad. Just the limits of putting anything to written form. Even John says, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” Jesus did MANY other things that were not written down. I wish they had written down a few more things.

The shortest verse in the Bible is “Jesus wept.” I like it because it show Jesus’ heart and how he hurt when a friend of his died. I wish there was one more like it. I wish the gospel writers would have included the fact that Jesus laughed. I wish I could read, “John leaned over and told Jesus a joke. Jesus belly-laughed hysterically.” I am sure they shared these type of moments. I mean you get 13 guys together for three years and there is going to be a large chunk of humor happening. To included Jesus laughing would have, for me, made the Bible a bit more complete and would have driven a substantial nail into the fact that Jesus was human––a flesh and bone guy who laughed and burped and passed gas and cried––as well as divine. Which makes me wonder if even the divine would do such things? (Minus, perhaps, the middle two).

There is a scene in the movie Amélie where she asks the question, “I wonder how many people are making love right now?” The cinema montage that followed were scenes of couples all over France making love, which, incidentally, caught my wife and I off guard, scrambling for the remote. By the time we found it, it was over. You’re probably asking why I mention this obscure, semi-taboo scene from this movie. Fair question.

As we were driving to San Jose for my wife’s Grandpa’s funeral (see Harry Hallman post), Amélie’s question popped into my head (her question, mind you, not the racy scenes…you’re never going to let me off the hook on this one, huh?). It got me pondering one similar: “I wonder how many people are burying or saying goodbye to a loved one right now?” And as I looked out the side window at the rolling hills of the Bay Area, images of people doing just that flashed through my head.

• A Russian mom—in her bedroom—mourning her infant who died much too young.
• A Iraqi husband—in rubble—holding his wife, a casualty of war.
• An African family—surrounding a hole—burying their AIDS stricken parents.
• American Siblings—in a church—sharing memories of their brother who commuted suicide.
• A German wife—crouched in a ball—weeping, wondering how she’ll survive without her best friend she married nine years ago.
• A Brazilian couple—in a procession—walking behind a casket holding their son.
• A Japanese man—in the night—alone for the first time, his parents gone.

As I let these images invade my mind, I didn’t feel so alone in my grief and loss. I felt a surreal, human connection with those I might never meet who were also, at that moment, saying goodbye to a person they loved. That moment in the car was a terribly tender gift my Father gave me. One I am at a loss to try to explain and certain I will never forget.

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.

We are having a fantastic dialog centered around the book, “The Shack”. In chapter two, a discussion takes place between the main character, Mack, and his daughter, Missy, about the Multnomah Native American Legend:

Mack waited while the girls processed their thoughts. Missy was the next to ask, “Is the Great Spirit another name for God - you know Jesus’ papa?”
Mack smiled in the dark. Obviously Nan’s nightly prayers were having an effect. “I would suppose so. It’s a good name for God because He is a spirit and He is great.”

The question that arose from this quote was this: Is it possible that the “Great Spirit” is the one, true God? Here was the answer I posted:

I am going to lay my cards on the table. In my opinion, I believe it is possible (again possible, not a certainty) that the “Great Spirit” could have been God. Here is why:

In reality, there is only ONE real, actual, living God. Period. Regardless of what humans think, there is one. This One God created all that there is, including beings in his likeness. Within this created order he plainly revealed himself; his invisible qualities, his eternal power, his divine nature. This self-disclosure was made evident to all of humanity…no favorites, no pre-selection.

So history continues. Humanity spreads across the globe. All of humanity can plainly see the evidence of this One God. The Native Americans step out into the plains, or the hills, or the mountains, or the oceans, or creation… and are awed, inspired, humbled by this one God that is being revealed to them through creation. Their response is that of worship: the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration towards this One God.

However, amazingly, this One God choose to reveal himself to a specific people, the Israelites, in a very specific way. Among other things, he reveals his name (Yahweh). He reveals more of his essence and character. He reveals his desire to bless, provide and forgive. He then reveals Jesus and the once-and-for-all forgiveness he provides. He reveals that beyond knowing “about” Him through creation, you can actually know him…personally. This Jesus cleared the way for this “personal knowing” of this One God.

But, across the pond, we still have the Native Americans worshiping in and out of the original “basic” revelation of this One God through creation. They do not know his name (Yahweh)…so they call him the “Great Spirt”. They only know of his desire to bless and provide, but not his desire to forgive. They know nothing of this Jesus who opened the door to a direct, personal relationship with God. How could they? It has not been revealed to them. GOD CHOSE to reveal these specifics to the Israelites, not them. But, just because they do not have this “specific” revelation (again, not their fault), it does not render null-and-void their worship of the same One God based on the “general” revelation this same God has given them.

But oh the joy they received when they learned (through the Israelites and people like you and me) the “Great Spirit’s” name, Yahweh; when they learned more about his desire to bless, provide and forgive; when they learned that they could access this ONE God through Jesus…and that their own redemption stories (or legends) actually helped pave the way for them to understand what Jesus did. That their general revelation (again, God given…not Satanic, not pagan, not of human origin, but given BY God to Humans) gave way to specific revelation (also, God given). What GOOD NEWS this was to them. This is why they have a “Native American Christianity” and not a “White-European Christianity”.

I see both general and specific revelation as complimenting each other, not at odds. After all, they are both self-disclosures from the same, One God. So for me, it is better to come alongside their “general” revelation, to work within their existing knowledge of this One God, in order to ease the way into the “specific” revelation of Yahweh (Father, Son, Spirit), as opposed to damning their “general” revelation.

So, this is why I believe it is possible that the “Great Spirit” could have been the “general revelation” name for the One God. But only God knows for sure, huh?