Conflict with the World, Part 2, Practice (When I was President of Citizens for Decency)

In John 17:14-16, Jesus prays that his disciples not be "of the world" since he is not. Jesus then goes on to say that The World will hate the disciples of Jesus. In John's first epistle (I John 2:15-17), he tells the followers of Jesus to "not love the world."

How do Christ-followers put this into practice?

In my experience there are two different approaches. In the first approach, one attempts to control the world and culture, turning it into a "Christian" culture that reflect Christian values.  In the second approach, one attempts to live as a "stranger", a citizen of heaven in a nonChristian system, recognizing that the cultural and political system will always be opposed to God, and not expecting otherwise. In this second system, we minister individually, being part of the "yeast" within the bread of society.

The Old Testament, with its emphasis on the kingdom of Israel, is an attempt at the first method. As the Old Testament itself makes clear, the process of creating a nation controlled by God, was a complete failure.

In the New Testament, the emphasis is very different.  In the New Testament, the followers of the Messiah, led by the promised Holy Spirit, "turn the world upside down."  But the political system was unchanged and, as the apostle John makes clear, the World is still very opposed to the Messiah.

Anyone who attempts to force their culture and country to become "Christian" has misread the New Testament.  There is no Biblical concept of a "Christian country".

I know quite a lot about this -- I have paid my dues here. Let me tell you what not to do!

When I was President of Citizens for Decency

Long ago, in the 1980s, I got involved in the "moral majority." I bought into the belief (promoted by one particular political party) that one could wage a culture war for Christianity.  I became active in the local chapter of Citizens for Decency (CFD), eventually becoming president. With this organization, I fought a "war" against pornography in my community. (Among other things, I successfully waged a campaign to have softporn magazines removed from the campus bookstore. Here is a link to a campus newspaper article about the group I led.  Unmentioned in the article is the threat by a university VP that if he had his way, I would be fired from the university.)

CFD accomplished a lot. We met with, and received support from the local DA. Most local stores which had originally sold soft porn magazines and/or rented hard porn videos eventually took these items from their shelves. At the high point of our work, we printed, once a month, 4000 bulletin inserts and delivered these inserts to local churches which then distributed them to their congregants. These inserts described research on the dangers of pornography.  It also rated local stores on their products, outing those stores that still sold pornography and praising stores that no longer did.

We accomplished a lot politically. But we did a lot of damage to the cause of Christ.  I regret my identification in this group as "Christian".

I don't want to downplay the cultural impact and dangers of pornography. But to accomplish what we did, we bullied local store owners.  Mom-and-pop stores that sold Playboy magazine or had a backshelf of x-rated video rentals were threatened by our "Christian" demands. They could support our "Christian" values or not -- but their livelihood depended on their response.

As our group became more powerful, the calls for compliance became more strident.  The problems of the "culture war" became clearer.  Some in our group wanted to ban R-rated rentals from the community. Many churches supported our boycott attitude, but few church attenders rewarded stores that announced themselves a "family friendly."  Other Christians were happy to see us attack "those bad guys", but few went out of their way to reward stores that caved in to our commands.

One local couple ran a small video store about half-a-mile from my house.  They endorsed our political activism and they removed the adult movies from their collection. We then promoted their video store regularly in our monthly bulletin inserts. I dropped by several times a month to chat and to rent videos for my children.  As I chatted with these "good guys", I watched their rental sales quickly drop off. (College students weren't visiting them anymore).  They tried to put a good face on their new "family values" but after a year, they closed.

I don't regret the political activism.  I regret that it was identified as Christian.  Regardless of the official stance of our organization, the community heard, "If you are Christian, you don't own or visit these stores".  That easily translated into, "If you own or visit these stores, you cannot be (or become) a Christian."

We identified Eternity with local business decisions!

Jesus died for these store owners.  He did not die so that they could have shelves clean of porn. By identifying our actions as "Christian" we made pornography a priority over the gospel.

As our group became more powerful and as some members made more strident boycott demands, I began to feel uncomfortable with my work. I eventually stepped down as president.  After a little time, the group collapsed.  Once I had backed away a bit from my leadership in this group, I was able to see its work more objectively and I could observe more closely its many failures among its successes.

Years later, one Sunday morning, my pastor arrived at church with three dozen donuts just purchased from a local donut shop.

"We should not be buying donuts from [that shop]," said one of our lay leaders. "We should boycott them."

This man went on to explain.  "That chain of donut shops is owned by Waldenbooks. Waldenbooks sells pornography.  We should send a message that we are opposed to pornography by boycotting any store owned by Waldenbooks." (See this related news article about the Waldenbooks boycott.)

I quickly objected. Every week our pastor visited this local store, chatted with the owner and clerks, and purchased several dozen donuts.  Our church was identified as supporting this small business. We were appreciated by the owner. This appreciation was a (small) result of our love for others in our community. Let us not ruin the gospel by becoming a "Christian bully"!

Our practice should follow our theology. As the New Testament confronts the world system, it does so by changing hearts, by changing souls. Politics is incapable of doing that.

Tomorrow, in another blog, we begin working our way through the Book of Revelation, the final book in the Bible.  It will have a lot to say about Christians and the world system!

Conflict with the World, Part 1, Theory

In John 17:14-16, Jesus prays that his disciples not be "of the world" since he is not. Jesus then goes on to say that the World will hate the disciples of Jesus. In John's first epistle (I John 2:15-17), he tells the followers of Jesus to "not love the world."

In a separate blog, I am working my way through the New Testament, chapter by chapter.  There, as we move from the Gospel of John into the epistles (letters) of John, we look at this concept of "the world". The Bible has a fair amount to say about the "World" (Greek "kosmos") and the path of the citizen of heaven.  According to the Bible, the cosmos is under the control of Satan (I John 4:4 and I John 5:19.) The world is the object of God's every action. Other passages on examples of "loving the World" include Genesis 3:6, Joshua 7:21, 2 Sam 11:2. New Testament verses on "the World" are John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11.  (I'll return to these at some later time.)

In my country (USA) in my times (late 20th, early 21st century) the Christian conflict with "the World" has often been misunderstood. This conflict is often interpreted to mean that believers must wage some type of "war" on the culture around them.

The New Testament view of "the World" is quite different. The follower of Jesus recognized that there was a higher kingdom, a higher citizenship (see Hebrews 11: 13-16) and that the political establishment (primarily the Roman empire) and the social establishment (civic Judaism) was in principle opposed to the things of God. Even the local social fabric in Israel seemed to promote a fake religiosity that allowed one to act spiritual (to act like a sincere Jew) while being insincere.

This has not significantly changed in two millenia. The Christian still should not expect to be rewarded socially or politically by his/her commitment to follow the Messiah. One of Jesus's teachings (Matthew 10:34-39) is particularly depressing in that regard, unless we are indeed looking for the City that God has prepared for us.

The relationship between the Christ-follower and their community is a complicated one. It should be so.  There should always be a certain tension between a Christ-follower and the community within which he/she lives, just like there is a certain tension in traveling overseas, in a culture and community that is not one's home.

Some of our community culture comes from within "the church", from religious organizations. Just as  Jesus experienced the sharpest conflict with the Jewish religious leaders, so too the Christ-follower will discover that religion (Christian religion) is in conflict with genuine spiritual growth and action. In any society in which Christianity has begun to hold significant social or political power, the culture has invaded the church. In my experience, we may need to be most alert to the influences of "the World" on Sunday. And it will not be in ways we first expect.

I have been in a number of churches that used Romans 14: 13-21 -- a passage that emphasizes compassion for spiritually weaker brothers or sisters -- to prohibit the drinking of alcoholic beverages. This is not because of some deep understanding of Scripture, but instead a long running cultural response to Prohibition in twentieth century America. A thoughtful reading of that passage in Romans should lead one to act differently in a number of ways -- and alcohol is the least of the problems of the church!

At some point, one has to decide with Habbakuk (Habbakuk 4: 17-18): "Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior."

In the New Testament one might observe the "Agrippa Principle" -- Christians often speak from chains -- (Acts 26: 28-29)... Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"  Paul replied, "Short time or long--I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains."

I will try to flesh this out further in a second, later post.  At one time I was very much immersed in the political fight against "the World". At one time I was president of the local chapter of Citizens for Decency, leading a campaign to rid the community of pornography (among other concerns.) I lost track of the true focus of the Christian life and I stooped for political influence.  I regret that.

Culture, "Culture Wars" and the Jewish Messiah

The various writings of the New Testament have an interesting approach to the first century culture and to culture and politics in general.

At a certain level, there is a deliberate lack of engagement with local culture and politics.  Jesus does not attempt to overthrow the Roman government and when challenged regarding Roman taxes, has a famous response about giving to God the things of God and giving to Caesar the things of Caesar.  In a similar way, Paul makes no attempt to overthrow the first century institution of slavery, but does pressure Philemon to free his runaway slave, Onesimus.

On a different level, there is a direct and confrontational approach to culture and politics.  Jesus forgives tax collectors and prostitutes and confronts religious hypocrites and the control of Jewish leaders.  In personal interactions, he tells an adulterous woman to "go and sin no more" and gets a tax collector to promise to repay everything he has stolen.  In a similar way, Paul confronts the jealousy and gluttony of the church in Corinth and insists that they are to be a model of the kingdom of God.

So how are Christians to engage in their culture and community?  I want to lay out some principles from the New Testament readings.

1. It begins with the heart.  There is such a human desire to change other people.  But one cannot engage as a Christian in the community unless one begins with their own life, recognizing their own selfishness, self-deception, jealousy, ego.  The world changed in the first century because people changed, because individuals committed to joining the Kingdom of God, not because they tried to enforce "religious" actions on others.  If I want to be an agent of change, then the first person I should hope to see changed is me.

2. It relies on the Holy Spirit and God's power and sovereignty.  God changes people; my  life is changed as I allow the Holy Spirit to work.  Paul repeatedly tells believers to pray and "not be anxious."  Change comes not through a legalistic set of resolutions but through genuine concern and love for others, seeing others through God's eyes.

3. The church has authority only over the church!  In I Corinthians 5, Paul confronts a very human desire to tell others what to do.  There, in verses 12-13, he asks, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the Church?"  If one says, "I am a believer and want to be part of your believing community," then it is appropriate to say, "Our community of believers has both rights and responsibilities."  It is only within the community of believers that Paul lays out expectations for truth, love, honesty and generally healthy community behavior.

4. The most common threat to the body of Christ seems to come from religious authorities! Throughout the New Testament the direct conflict to the young church comes first from Jewish religious leaders and later, occasionally, from pagan religious leaders (such as the followers of Diana in Ephesus, see Acts 19:23-41.)  It might be pointed out that religious leaders have often worked out a way to profit financially from their religion and so find true religion a threat.

In the United States, Christianity has suffered greatly at the hands of religious leaders who claimed to represent Christian beliefs and then used those beliefs for political gain.  I recall Richard Nixon, in 1972, getting Billy Graham to endorse him; Nixon also presented himself to the Explo '72 crowd as a Christian president who fully supported the evangelistic goals of Campus Crusade.  (I was there.)

I could list numerous examples that followed.  Routinely religious leaders (see item 4!) have used Christianity as a way to gain power, bully those who don't believe (item 3), pressure people to be anxious and frightened (#2), while routinely living personal lives of greed, jealousy, lust and abuse (#1.)

The only comment I might make about current US politics is already said in this link. However, let me give a more general example of how not  to engage in culture change.

A US television network tells people there is "a war on Christmas."  It encourages its viewers to get angry and fight against this war.  (See items #2 and #3.)  As it encourages Christians to speak up to "preserve Christmas", the network's ratings go up and certain "Christian" leaders gain popularity (#4.)  But if you are a believer and follower of Jesus, why engage in this? Relax!  God is ultimately in control. If you want to "preserve Christmas", make it a time of joy and kindness. Remember the Messiah born in the Jewish city of David, who died for all humankind.  Let nonbelievers celebrate the holiday (or not) as they wish. And be leery of people with financial incentives (ad revenue) who attempt to get you to abandon compassion for conflict.

NO, you do NOT need to vote for President!

Here in the United States, after a bizarre primary season, American voters prepare for a November election.  As we do this, everyone repeats the old myth that, regardless of the difficulties in choices, "You must cast your vote for President!"

Facebook posts and news articles stress that "Your vote for president is important!"  (Many then go on to tell you who you should vote for and why that candidate matters.)

I will skip all the political debate about who to vote for and confront the false and damaging myth that "Your vote counts!"

Your vote for president is meaningless.  And the belief that that presidential vote counts is damaging.

IF you cast your first presidential vote at the age of 18 (as I did) and if you continue to vote every four years until you are 118, your vote will never come close to impacting the election.  This is true even if, somehow, you also talk TEN THOUSAND friends into voting with you!

My goal is not to denigrate voting for president.  But your vote is only important locally, not nationally.  Vote locally; vote in the small elections for city council, school board, district judges, the sheriff or chief of police.  It is in those small, less splashy elections that your votes (and the votes of your friends) may indeed count!

The shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri on August 9, 2014, turned a spotlight on that city of 21,000 residents.  Although two-thirds of the residents were African-American and many of those residents expressed frustration with racial profiling, the city council remained all white; the police chief was white and 48 of 53 police officers were white.  The officers were comfortable making racial jokes and slurs.  The local environment was toxic.  But when discussing the make-up of their city, many African-Americans expressed resignation about local politics, skepticism that the city could be changed and apathy about voting locally.  Yet many of them also expressed their excitement in voting for Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

It was precisely that presidential vote which did them no good.

In hindsight, it is clear that if the African-American community in Ferguson had concentrated on changing the local environment, on supporting progressive candidates for city council and mayor and had advocated for removing the police chief, the endemic racism in the local structure might have been forcibly changed (or at least reduced.)  The cycle of poverty caused by police revenue-generating tactics could have been confronted.  But instead the community voted for president.

In the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney won Missouri by 260,000 votes and so Missouri cast 10 votes in the electoral college for Romney.  It cast no votes for Obama in the electoral college (of course) and so any vote for Obama in Missouri did not affect the electoral college vote.

The racially oppressed African-American community in Ferguson had (still has) the power to change the political structure of that town.  The members of that community should vote in all upcoming elections.  But they don't need to vote for president.  While everyone's attention is turned to the splashy presidential and national elections, the real power of the voter is locally!

Nate Silver's 538 webpage predicts that Missouri will go strongly Republican in the 2016 presidential election and (at the time of this writing) gives Donald Trump an 83.6% probability of winning Missouri's 10 electoral votes. Regardless of how any one individual votes, the state will cast all its electoral votes for Trump.  The people of Missouri can debate the merits of Trump, Clinton and third party candidates like Gary Johnson all they want.  They can post on Facebook arguments about the next president's impact on pro-life, pro-choice, immigration, women, health care, military ... but the simple truth is that Missouri will cast 10 electoral votes for Trump and that is that.  What really matters is the local election!

I can hear the common opposition to this argument. It begins, "If everyone followed your advice then..."

Stop! Logically -- one canNOT argue a point with a supposition that is false! This will never occur; human beings don't act that way.  If, in some unlikely future election, MILLIONS of people were to decide to cast local votes but NOT vote for president, this might force politicians to rethink the election process and the electoral college.  (Frankly, that would not be all bad.) But most people will continue to mindlessly believe that their presidential vote is somehow important.  And they will not pay attention to the smaller local elections where they do have a voice.

Yes, think globally.  But vote locally!

Is Your Country Your Idol?

Next week, as we work our way through the New Testament, a chapter per day, we will hit Hebrews 11. This lengthy chapter is the culmination of the author's essay on the importance of following Christ and the patience required in being a citizen of Heaven.  Although some describe the chapter as a list of heroes of faith, the chapter has a secondary undercurrent which surfaces in verses 13-16 of that chapter. There the author makes it clear that these past heroes of faith saw themselves as citizens of God's country and recognized that they were "aliens and strangers" on this planet.

This theme occurs in other places throughout the New Testament. Jesus, throughout his ministry, announced the beginning of the kingdom of God (or kingdom of Heaven) and in various ways (see Matthew 22:15-22 and Matthew 4:8-10) made it clear that the kingdom of God was much more serious than mere political power.

Paul, in II Corinthians 5: 17-21 , describes his role as that of an "ambassador", reaching out to people in this world to encourage them to be reconciled to God.  The ambassador metaphor is a strong one; the ambassador lives in one country but represents another.  We, as Christ's ambassadors, currently live in a strange country, one "not our own"; we live as ambassadors for another country.

This image is true throughout all time, since the day of Jesus.  Christians are citizens of "another country", whether they live in the Roman Empire or the Holy Roman Empire, whether living in the German kingdoms of Luther's day or the Scotland of John Knox.

From time to time, Christians forget this.  Christians are occasionally seduced by political power into believing they can create a "Holy empire" or a "Christian nation."  This seduction first occurred in the Roman Empire when Constantine converted and decided to make his empire "Christian." Later Charlemagne called his empire "Holy". The Catholic Spanish Empire mixed Christian missions with imperialism and oppression, especially in South America.  Protestant England claimed to be a "Christian nation" and used that motive to build its global empire.  In justification of this, there even arose the cult of British Israelism, in which many claimed that Britain was the new Israel. Some English Christians even claimed that the kings of England were descendants of King David.

A Christian does not have to read world history to see the problems with this "Christian Nation" philosophy. The New Testament says nothing about "Christian nations" or godly kingdoms. Indeed, the last book in the New Testament, the book of Revelation, assures Christians that the heavenly kingdom is waiting in the wings, for the final trumpet, after all the earthly kingdoms have undergone their violent tantrums against God.

The only references in the Bible to a "godly nation" are in the Old Testament. There the references are to the nation of Israel, set up as a theocracy, a nation ruled by God alone.  As that nation repeatedly resisted this idea, it replaced God with kings and kingdoms and it alternated (for centuries!) between obedience and disobedience.  There are many passages in the Old Testament (such as II Chronicles 7:14) in which God makes promises to the nation of Israel but one should be careful with that context and not presume that those same verses somehow apply to the Holy Roman Empire or the Spanish Empire or even countries or kingdoms in existence today.

Jesus told the Herodians and Pharisees "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." He also said, "No one can serve two masters."  One cannot pledge allegiance to the future kingdom of God and to one's country at the same time, for they are in conflict; they both will seek to be the master.

Adolf Hitler, attempting to promote German nationalism among German Christians, created the Reich Church.  The book Mein Kampf appeared on the altars of those churches (presumably next to the Bible) and the national symbol, the swastika, appeared in the front of the sanctuaries.  We may laugh at this today -- it seems ludicrous to us -- but I have been in churches which had the American flag visible up front, near the cross.

The New Testament has a lot to say about Christians serving as good citizens within our communities and within our countries, wherever God places us.  But it does not allow us to make our country an idol. If we follow the Jewish Messiah, Jesus, then we are citizens of another country and we are aliens and strangers here.

Update July 2, 2016: A similar post is here.

Sunday Morning, Singapore

This morning, while visiting in Singapore, I went with Jim & Monica Davis to the Living Praise Presbyterian Church on the northeast side of the country.  We took the Red Line from the west side of the island north through Woodlands, not far from Malaysia, and then around to the northeast where we got off at the Bishan MRT.  We walked Bishan Street 13 for half a mile, finding the church in among the buildings of the Kuo Chuan Presbyterian Primary School.

We had been invited by friends David and Deb Walker, staff with One Challenge Singapore. There are two churches which meet within the Presbyterian school, so I was not sure I was in the right place until I was greeted by David Lin, one of the church elders.  Jan and I had met David before, and he greeted me warmly and quickly took our group to meet our hosts.

I was pleased to learn that this Sunday was a special joint Mandarin-English service.  The church was accepting new members and installing a new elder and deacon and so the Mandarin and English halves had come together in a single service to worship together.  I am aware of the importance of worshiping God in one's own tongue and I am grateful for a Mandarin-English church in The Woodlands in Texas that ministered to one of our university students back in Huntsville.  It was fun to sing in English, while listening to other sing in Mandarin and I am sure one has to carefully pick hymns that will allow both tongues to sing together!

After the service, we had a wonderful lunch with the church body.  Yes, ministry is facilitated by good food and conversation!

I attach (I hope) a short video of the church singing one of the hymns.

The Afterlife

In a related blog, I've been working my way through the New Testament, chapter by chapter. There we are just finishing I Corinthians.

The end of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians is a suitable place to explore Paul's description of the afterlife.  Paul insists that he saw Jesus after his crucifixion and resurrection and claims some 500 others did also.  Paul insists the belief in the resurrection is central to his faith in the Jewish Messiah, Jesus.

Paul then goes on to claim that there will be a final Resurrection of the dead and a "celestial body", a true physical body, but in many ways different from the current earthly one.  How this occurs is unknown and probably unknowable.  Christians have added layers to this interpretation since then.

Central to the theology of the afterlife, within Christianity, is a belief that there will be an afterlife and that one's part in the afterlife is linked to one's response to Jesus is this one.  After this, the viewpoints begin to diverge.  Do those who reject Jesus go on to a place of conscious torment, often called Hell?  Is Hell/Hades a place of annihilation, of a continuance of death and the end of existence?  Is there some type of "cleansing" place of Purgatory? (See here, here and here, as part of a book review on the Jesus Creed blog by Scot McKnight, of the book Four Views on Hell.)

Does one, after death, immediately move into a conscious state, with the soul separated but conscious and aware? Or does life require a body and so after death one "sleeps", unaware, until recreated in the final Resurrection?  The Jesus Creed blog has a brief discussion on that also.

Of course, there is a wide-ranging article on the afterlife at Wikipedia.

I have my own opinions on this ... but the only one I will share here is this: like Paul, I believe (and hope) there will be a Resurrection.  After that, it is OK to not be sure about any of the many views on how the afterlife will occur. One can have doubts.  One should ask questions about the form it takes and whether our existence, as Scot McKnight asks, is "separation of soul and body (dualism)" or "physicality."

We will all find out soon enough....

Next week, on that blog, we will begin studying my favorite gospel, The Gospel of Mark.

Disputing Baptism

In the blog A Year in the New Testament, I've been working my ways through Paul's "first" letter to the church in Corinth....

In the opening chapter of Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth, we see a dispute in the Corinthian church about baptism.  Although the details of the dispute have changed, disputing baptism continues to be a Christian "hobby" even today. This is regretful.

The dispute in Corinth was over which leaders to follow and this was marked by one's choice of baptism.  One person says, "I was baptized by Apollos" and another says, "I was baptized by Peter!" Paul confronts this by emphasizing that each of these individuals, including himself, are working together, ministering in various ways.  One apostle "plants the seeds", another "waters the crops". How then can any one individual claim full responsibility for the bountiful crops?

In recent centuries the dispute has not been over WHO did the baptism, but HOW it was done.  The dispute has been over the mode of baptism.  I was a member of one church where one MUST be baptized, by immersion, as a believing adult. If one had been baptized as a child (as I was) then one MUST be rebaptized.

I was also a member of another church where baptism of infants was the norm and the baptism was "sprinkling", that is, placing water on the infant's forehead. Adult believers who had been baptized as children could make a commit of renewal in a certain manner, but one was NEVER baptized a second time.

In the first church (a Baptist church), the pastor told a Sunday School class, "I have never met a sincere Bible scholar who believes in infant baptism."  A year later I (while on a sabbatical visit) I was in another church (a Presbyterian church) in which the pastor said essentially the exact opposite, "Serious students of the Bible recognize that baptism is a sign of the covenant, like Jewish circumcision, and it has always been practiced with infants."

What would happen if we put those two pastors in the same room together and locked the door? Would it lead to some type of reconciliation? A friend, upon hearing this tale, said wisely, "Those statements say more about the social circles of the two pastors than it does about theology."

Although the dispute has changed, the application of I Corinthians is straightforward.  Paul is almost dismissive of baptism.  Yes, it is important, but he is happy that he did not baptize anyone!  Then he pauses and says, "Well, except for Crispus and Gaius. Oh, wait, also the family of Stephanos.  Hmm, after that, I don't recall if I baptized others."  He downplays the rite, as it has become divisive.  He certainly does not bother to give any instructions on how baptism should be done!

We should follow Paul's example.  Baptism is an important public statement of membership in the Kingdom of God.  Practice it in that manner.  Let us be welcoming of all others who attest to this membership, regardless of the form of that initiation ceremony!

Wikipedia, of course, has a good article on baptism.  If you read that, note the discussion on the mode of baptism in the early centuries of the young church.

The letter to the church in Corinth does describe the mode of another "sacrament", that of communion. (See I Corinthians 11: 23-26.)  This too we need to practice regularly and in common with other Christians.

We will return to our study of I Corinthians tomorrow at that sister blog....

A Perfect Church

Jan and I have been visiting a church in The Woodlands.  They say, "There is no perfect church." A corollary to this is, "If you find one, don't join it, as you will ruin it!"

Still ... Jan suggested that I try out this church's Brew Night, a "guys night out" event in College Park, at the north end of The Woodlands.  The event is at a restaurant only 35 miles from Huntsville and just off the interstate, so just a 30-minute drive.  Maybe, Jan hopes, I can find some Christian guys who like beer, soccer and (maybe even) are interested in scientific/mathy things.

So last night I drove to Wings 'N More for a 6:30 pm Men's "Brew Night".  I tried to keep my expectations low. I am often uncomfortable with the "pseudo-religiosity" I see in various church events.  I got to the restaurant at 6:30 but there was already a table of about a dozen men, with big goblets of Shiner beer.  I ordered a goblet (16-20 ounces) of Shiner and a plate of wings.  I met Todd (Pastor of Community Life) and I chatted a little about small groups.  Todd made me feel welcome, as did Jim, Damon, Matt, Kyle (Pastor of Children's Ministries) and the senior pastor (David.)  All had big goblets of Shiner and were clearly enjoying this monthly get-together.

"So", Todd explains to me, "we do this on a monthly basis.  But sometimes we do a brewery tour, visiting Southern Star or B-52 or... " (he names a third local brewery that I've since forgotten.)  "Or we go to a soccer game."

Soccer!  Brewery tours!  This is too good to be true.  (And the pastor got a bachelors degree in Computer Science!)  I text Jan about the beer and soccer.

She writes back, "I think you're making this up!"  She adds, "They are probably just leading you on!" (She also reminds me that I have to drive home -- on I-45 -- and sends a smiley face.)

Shortly after that, the talk turns to dogs.  Todd and his wife have two.  Kyle has one, staying in St. Louis while he and his family live in an apartment.  Four of us spend 45 minutes telling dog stories. Then, in the warmth of the beer, spicy food and warm conversation, I walk out to my car.

Sitting in my car, I notice a text message from Jan, about 45 minutes old.  I had not seen it until then.

BUT, do they like dogs?!...  ;-)

She adds, "That is the real question!"

I knew she wouldn't believe me when I told her....

(Pericopes of Peter) Mark 3: 20-35, Jesus's Family

Jesus has just appointed twelve men to be his followers, his disciples.

Mark 3: 20-30
Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."

And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons."

So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

"I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."

There are several forms of rejection here.  What are they?

Couldn’t Satan fool people by pretending to be on the wrong side, by driving out demons?  (I don’t completely understand Jesus’ answer.)

Mark 3: 31-35
Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."

"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

But Jesus responds.  What are his priorities?  Ours?  How practical is this, how do we apply it?

(Pericopes of Peter) Mark 3:1-19, Disciples Chosen

Jesus has recently had a dispute with the Pharisees over the Sabbath.  Here another dispute arises, based on another healing.

Mark 3: 1-6
Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath.

Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Stand up in front of everyone." Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent.

 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

Why is Jesus' angry?  He seems surprised.

What is the response of the Pharisees?  (Who are the Herodians?  What is the relevance of the collaboration between Pharisees and Herodians?)

Mark 3: 7-12
Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the lake, and a large crowd from Galilee followed. When they heard all he was doing, many people came to him from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, and the regions across the Jordan and around Tyre and Sidon. Because of the crowd he told his disciples to have a small boat ready for him, to keep the people from crowding him. For he had healed many, so that those with diseases were pushing forward to touch him.

Whenever the evil spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God." But he gave them strict orders not to tell who he was.

Why are the crowds coming?

Where are they coming from? (Look at an atlas.)

What is the reason for the boat?  (Explain.  Note that Mark says very little in the way of explanation.)

Why does he give these strict orders?  Why do those he heals disobey it?

Mark 3: 13-19
Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. He appointed twelve--designating them apostles --that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons.

These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder); Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

What is the point of this section?  Why?

Why are there 12?  (What is the significance of this number?)

  NIV footnotes on verse 14: Some ancient manuscripts do not have "designating them apostles".

(Pericopes of Peter) Mark 2:13-28, Religion and the Broken

Jesus continues his ministry along the shore of Galilee.

Mark 2:13-17
Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.  While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 

When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and `sinners'?"

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Jesus continues to reach out to the broken and downtrodden, unlike the religious leaders who tend to push those people away.  This is a major theme in the gospels – Jesus (and Christianity) is for the weak, not the strong!

Sometime ago I read a post by a Muslim teacher on why Islam was better than Christianity.  The main idea of his post was this: Mohammed surrounded himself with powerful men; Jesus surrounded himself with weaklings!  "Look at Peter, for example," the Muslim evangelist said.  The disciples of Jesus were worthless, according to that Islamic teacher.  How true.  But there is Christianity in a nutshell – Jesus reached out to people who need a Savior (and know it), to people who are broken and hurting.

A note -- Levi, son of Alphaeus, is also called Matthew.

Mark 2:18-22

Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, "How is it that John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?"

Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them.  But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.

"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse.  And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins."

Who is fasting?  Why do you think Jesus is asked this question?

The fasting of John's disciples gave a veneer of religious commitment.  Apparently the disciples of Jesus, following their master, were not as committed, were not as "religious" as those of John!  The outside observers wondered about this.

What is Jesus’ response?  What does this mean? What is the stuff about the new garment, old wineskins, mean?

Mark 2:23-28
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain.  The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"

He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.  So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

What do the Pharisees ask?  Why do you think they ask this?  What is their motive?

What is Jesus’ response?  (What does this mean?)

How is this similar to the fasting incident?  What is really going on here?

Note the phrase, "Son of Man".  This is a Messianic term; Jesus is identifying himself as Messiah.

(Pericopes of Peter) Mark 2:1-12, Raising the Roof!

(Continuing a study of Mark, Friday afternoons, as part of Bridges at Sam...)

After preaching in the cities of Galilee, Jesus returns to Capernaum, the home of his disciples.

Mark 2:1-5, Faithful friends raise a roof
A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home.  So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them.  Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them.  Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on.  When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

One of my favorite stories!  As Jesus moves around, crowds follow him.  The home (as suggested by William Barclay) was probably quite open and the crowd would have flowed in and prevented any path to Jesus.  But the roof was probably a place to sit in hot weather and designed to support people.

Why did Jesus first offer to forgive?  Why did he do it in that order, forgiveness (when not asked) before healing (which was the obvious request)?

Mark 2:6-12, The Sabbath interferes
Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves,  "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things?  Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, `Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, `Get up, take your mat and walk'?  But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." 

He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."

He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

Why did Jesus forgive, then heal?  Why did he do it in that order?  Clearly that matters most, but is incomplete.

Don't miss the sadness in the pharisaic legalism.  To the religious leaders, rules trump everything.

Imagine the reaction of the religious teachers when the man gets up!

(Pericopes of Peter) Mark 1:35-45

After healing Simon's mother-in-law and many in the community of Caesarea, Jesus begins a more general ministry throughout Galilee (northern Israel.)

Mark 1: 35-39, The ministry begins

Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed.  Simon and his companions went to look for him, and when they found him, they exclaimed: "Everyone is looking for you!"

Jesus replied, "Let us go somewhere else--to the nearby villages--so I can preach there also. That is why I have come."

So he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and driving out demons.

The ministry begins with Jesus isolated and praying.  (Why does God need to pray?)
Where does Jesus preach?  What are the results?  (Why?)

Mark 1: 40-45, A leper approaches
A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, "If you are willing, you can make me clean."

Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"

Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured.   Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning:

"See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them."

Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.

What is Jesus's reaction to the leper's request?  (In verse 1:40 The Greek word translated leprosy here was used for various diseases affecting the skin--not necessarily leprosy.  But clearly this is a serious, incurable disease.)

Why did Jesus give him the strong warning?  What is wrong with the leper telling everyone of Jesus's work?

(Pericopes of Peter) Mark 1:29-34

Jesus has just spoken in the synagogue and healed a man with an "unclean spirit".

Mark 1:29-34 Also a healer!

As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew.  Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told Jesus about her.  So he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them.

That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed.  The whole town gathered at the door, and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

Simon Peter is surely the main source for the gospel of Mark.  One of the early miracles of Jesus is to heal the mother of Simon's wife.  We don't know the severity of the fever but, like a typical mother, once she is feeling better, Simon's mother-in-law begins to serve the small crowd in her home!

The effect is immediate.  After sunset (when it is cooler?) the crowds come.  The "whole town" has heard and shows up as the door.  And Jesus responds.  Once again there are "evil spirits"; once again they are commanded not to identify Jesus!

A few simple observations: Yes, we all need help -- both teaching and healing.  And there are times to identify Jesus (we will see some later) and times to be quiet.

William Barclay suggests that the reason for people bringing the sick after sunset is to avoid working on the Sabbath.

(Pericopes of Peter) Mark 1:21-28

Capernaum is near Nazareth, in northern Israel (Galilee.)  Jesus first begins teaching, as any Jew would, in a synagogue, on the Sabbath (Saturday.) 

Mark 1:21-28 A different teacher!
They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach.  The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.

Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit cried out, "What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God!"

"Be quiet!" said Jesus sternly. "Come out of him!"

The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.  The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, "What is this? A new teaching--and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him."

News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee.

How is Jesus's teaching received?

A strange event occurs in the synagogue!  What is it?  (NIV footnotes say "evil spirit" might be "unclean spirit".)  What is the effect of the "evil" or "unclean" spirit?  And why does Jesus hush it up?!

Of course news spreads!  Is this good?

(Pericopes of Peter) Mark 1:14-20

Jesus has finished his time in the desert and is ready for ministry.

1:14-15  The kingdom begins
After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God.  "The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

Does the imprisonment of John stir Jesus to ministry?  Observe that Jesus emphasizes the "good news" (or "gospel") of the coming kingdom.  The concept of repentance is a positive change, in the direction of the kingdom of heaven.

1:16-20 Four disciples
As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.  "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."  At once they left their nets and followed him.

When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets.  Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.

There are now four official disciples, Simon, Andrew, James and John.  Why does Jesus suddenly pick these people?  (Is it really sudden?  Or does it appears this way through Mark's collapsing of time?)

(Pericopes of Peter) Mark 1:9-13

A pericope is a short dynamic story, somewhat self-contained.  Much of the Gospel of Mark consists of these short events, dramatically recalled by Peter, copied down later by Mark.

Here is the second pericope in Mark's gospel.

Mark 1:9-13  The beginning of Jesus' ministry -- baptism and temptation
At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.  As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.  And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert, and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

Nazareth is some distance north of Galilee, 70-80 miles. 

Why is Jesus baptized?  What happens when he is baptized?  Theologically, philosophically, this is an intriguing passage.  If Jesus is the perfect Lamb of God, as taught elsewhere in the New Testament – and in the early church – why does he need to be baptized?

Note that heaven was "torn" open!  This describes a dramatic, almost violent, action.

What does Jesus do after the baptism?  Why?

What is baptism?  How is Jesus' baptism different from that of John?

Why does Mark leave out so much?  (Eg. "He was with the wild animals and angels attended him.")  Couldn't he have said a little more??