Did Jesus have a martyr syndrome? We often portray him as fixed on death. In many of our churches (and our lives) we leave him hanging on a cross. I've been in Catholic churches in Latin America where he is "lying in state" in a glass coffin. He bluntly stated in other places that he came to give his life as a ransom. Yet, the way this passage reads, I don't think he was fixed on death at all.
Twice the crowd tried to seize him and could not. The temple guards came for him but did not take him. Anyone that was looking for martyrdom would probably have taken advantage of one of those three moments. Yet, Jesus was not looking for death at that time; he was looking for how to give life.
And what's the big deal about whether he had a martyr syndrome or not? For me personally the issue is that I honestly don't know how to follow a person that has a death fixation. Am I to go through life being morbid or acting like this world does not count? But Jesus did not live that way. This is a man fixed not on death but on sharing life. All his teaching in this section is about knowing God and having his Spirit. His focus was not death but life.
When I think of Jesus I think he was a joyful person. I don't think he was silly happy nor do I think he was somber. He was driven by the purpose of giving life to others and that life was full of joy. He didn't call people to become zombies walking around exhausted from worry or work. He didn't call people to frivolity either. He called us all to wake up and really live. I think Jesus would have been refreshing to be around.
There is a line from an old church song that says "Look away from the cross to the glittering crown." I think Jesus would have liked that line.
Showing posts with label spirit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spirit. Show all posts
Monday, July 11, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Acts 18; Spirit Orchestration
Aquila grew up in Pontus and moved to Rome. He and his wife Priscilla were forced from Rome to Corinth. Paul was journeying from Thessalonica through Berea and Athens and stopped in Corinth. Together all three then moved on to Ephesus where they split up for some reason. Paul continued his journey and the couple stayed. Meanwhile, a young scholar from the Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt moved to Ephesus as well. Who had gone down to Alexandria to teach him? We don't know. Acts 2 mentions Jews from Egypt who were present at the Pentecost event; maybe one of them took the gospel to Alexandria. And so a traveler from Jerusalem touched an Alexandrian who bumped into a Pontus couple that just left Rome and Corinth to reside in Ephesus after having lived with Paul in the middle of his long journey. Either it is fascinating circumstance or amazing orchestration by the Spirit.
Did they know that the Spirit was guiding them to these meetings in order to evangelize the known world? Did they have inner leadings, signs or dreams to guide them? Only Paul is recorded as having any vision and that did not regard any of the locations mentioned above. It seems far less glamorous and far more subtle in the text. The Spirit accomplished his will through dedicated people but in a "low key", almost imperceptible way.
Occasionally we are blessed to recognize God at work in the moment. Even more rarely we get the chance to know what he will do in the future. Yet it seems we most commonly are able to see his handiwork in retrospect. Occasionally I lose a golf ball after a long shot on the course -- thankfully this is a less frequent occurrence than it used to be. The way to find the ball is to go where I thought is was and then align myself with the tee box and the objects (hills, bushes, cart path, etc.) that the ball flew over. When I turn back to the course, I am able to better understand where to look for the ball next. Often, anticipating where God will be next or where he would most probably use me is much the same. By looking back I see where I used to be, recognize the way he has led me up to this point and then can turn back to the future following the trajectory of the past to better align myself with his desires -- whether that be in Ephesus, Egypt or elsewhere. To see his work in retrospect is to anticipate his work in the future.
Did they know that the Spirit was guiding them to these meetings in order to evangelize the known world? Did they have inner leadings, signs or dreams to guide them? Only Paul is recorded as having any vision and that did not regard any of the locations mentioned above. It seems far less glamorous and far more subtle in the text. The Spirit accomplished his will through dedicated people but in a "low key", almost imperceptible way.
Occasionally we are blessed to recognize God at work in the moment. Even more rarely we get the chance to know what he will do in the future. Yet it seems we most commonly are able to see his handiwork in retrospect. Occasionally I lose a golf ball after a long shot on the course -- thankfully this is a less frequent occurrence than it used to be. The way to find the ball is to go where I thought is was and then align myself with the tee box and the objects (hills, bushes, cart path, etc.) that the ball flew over. When I turn back to the course, I am able to better understand where to look for the ball next. Often, anticipating where God will be next or where he would most probably use me is much the same. By looking back I see where I used to be, recognize the way he has led me up to this point and then can turn back to the future following the trajectory of the past to better align myself with his desires -- whether that be in Ephesus, Egypt or elsewhere. To see his work in retrospect is to anticipate his work in the future.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Acts 16:1-10; Keep Walking
I used to watch an old cartoon (An American Tale) with my kids. There is a great scene where the daddy mouse keeps having to tell the son, "Keep walking, keep walking." It seems that Paul had the same idea in mind.
Paul replaced Mark with Timothy and circumcised him in order that they could be accepted by the Jews where they visited (Paul usually taught in synagogues). Then they kept walking. The text says that the Spirit impeded Paul twice and gave him a specific call once. The positive call was a vision but the others are not clarified for us. What impresses me and what I think Paul did different than many of us when we are waiting on God is that he kept walking. After having doors closed to him, he simply redirected the journey but never lost his zeal nor his purpose. He certainly did not sit and wait.
As a culture we tend to be so busy and anxious that we often don't listen for God. In those moments, "be still" is the hardest and most helpful thing. Yet there is another extreme that we can engage in and that is sitting and waiting until God makes everything clear. It seems he rarely does that. Most of Abraham's, Moses', Jesus' and Paul's lives were spent walking. They were given direction after they obeyed and acted on their convictions. As an old preacher that I respected used to say, "God doesn't give direction to a stone." It seems that our convictions are to be lived out and along the way the direction will come at the appropriate time. So, keep walking.
Paul replaced Mark with Timothy and circumcised him in order that they could be accepted by the Jews where they visited (Paul usually taught in synagogues). Then they kept walking. The text says that the Spirit impeded Paul twice and gave him a specific call once. The positive call was a vision but the others are not clarified for us. What impresses me and what I think Paul did different than many of us when we are waiting on God is that he kept walking. After having doors closed to him, he simply redirected the journey but never lost his zeal nor his purpose. He certainly did not sit and wait.
As a culture we tend to be so busy and anxious that we often don't listen for God. In those moments, "be still" is the hardest and most helpful thing. Yet there is another extreme that we can engage in and that is sitting and waiting until God makes everything clear. It seems he rarely does that. Most of Abraham's, Moses', Jesus' and Paul's lives were spent walking. They were given direction after they obeyed and acted on their convictions. As an old preacher that I respected used to say, "God doesn't give direction to a stone." It seems that our convictions are to be lived out and along the way the direction will come at the appropriate time. So, keep walking.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Acts 11:1-18; Following
The Jewish believers were upset that Peter had associated with Gentiles. Their particular hangup was that he went into the home of non-Jews -- not that he had baptized them. There was a direct command against the former; the latter was still new to everyone. In his defense, Peter explained that God had communicated through visions, direct words of the Spirit and signs. His conclusion statement was basically "If God is doing this, who am I to stand in his way?" It came down to who was in control; who was running the church?
I admire Peter for his openness. He allowed God to be God and stayed in the role of follower. Through dreams, direct revelation and signs on top of his years of walking with Jesus, Peter was leadable. He was truly a follower.
We don't talk much about followership. We all want to change the world rather than let God change it using us. We see needs and respond; that's easy. Seeing God meet the needs and falling in line with what he is doing is a little more challenging. It might not make sense to everyone around us; it might not make sense to us. Yet Peter followed with total commitment because he could point to specific interventions by God and the overall outcome looked a lot like what Jesus had often done. I think that radical ideas proposed by those who have a "leading" void of specific interventions (direct voice, vision, signs) and the outcome of which does not necessarily look like one of Jesus' priorities, should be suspect. Yet radical ideas backed by specific interventions of the Spirit that lead to outcomes like those in the life of Jesus, need to be embraced.
I anticipate that the Spirit is much more active in guiding us today than we recognize. I also anticipate that the attribution of personal desires to the Spirit's leading is becoming more and more common, even when the Spirit probably has not done a thing. Hence the two ends of the pendulum swing, i.e., ignorance of Jesus with attribution to the Spirit for a license to do what I want versus an amazing depth of Biblical understanding resulting in an orthopraxy so strong that not even the Spirit could break us out of it. It seems that Peter found the middle ground where a rich understanding of the nature and goals of Jesus were married to a clear vision of the work of God in the world today.
I admire Peter for his openness. He allowed God to be God and stayed in the role of follower. Through dreams, direct revelation and signs on top of his years of walking with Jesus, Peter was leadable. He was truly a follower.
We don't talk much about followership. We all want to change the world rather than let God change it using us. We see needs and respond; that's easy. Seeing God meet the needs and falling in line with what he is doing is a little more challenging. It might not make sense to everyone around us; it might not make sense to us. Yet Peter followed with total commitment because he could point to specific interventions by God and the overall outcome looked a lot like what Jesus had often done. I think that radical ideas proposed by those who have a "leading" void of specific interventions (direct voice, vision, signs) and the outcome of which does not necessarily look like one of Jesus' priorities, should be suspect. Yet radical ideas backed by specific interventions of the Spirit that lead to outcomes like those in the life of Jesus, need to be embraced.
I anticipate that the Spirit is much more active in guiding us today than we recognize. I also anticipate that the attribution of personal desires to the Spirit's leading is becoming more and more common, even when the Spirit probably has not done a thing. Hence the two ends of the pendulum swing, i.e., ignorance of Jesus with attribution to the Spirit for a license to do what I want versus an amazing depth of Biblical understanding resulting in an orthopraxy so strong that not even the Spirit could break us out of it. It seems that Peter found the middle ground where a rich understanding of the nature and goals of Jesus were married to a clear vision of the work of God in the world today.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Acts 6:8-7:60; God-with-us
Stephen's story and words catch my attention in several ways. It is amazing how his story parallels that of Jesus; surely the way the story was told by Luke emphasized certain aspects that made that possible, i.e., false witnesses, speaking out against the Jewish leaders using Jewish history, forgiveness just before death, etc. I am also impressed by the frequency of mention of wisdom in the account; Biblically there is more interplay between wisdom and the Spirit than I used to think. I am also impressed by the side thought of Moses as the adopted child looking for his identity and then being forced into the desert with even more questions than he had before.
The conclusion of the sermon, however, is what has has always grabbed me. I would have preached on through the exile and return; Stephen cut off the story of the Jews at the building of the temple (900 years before Jesus). He jumped straight from the temple to resisting the Holy Spirit. I never understood that until I spent years in the Torah; now it makes more sense.
The message of the rescue from Egypt was that God wants to live with his people. That was provided for by the tabernacle and then the temple and then Jesus. It is a logical sequence once the primary point is understood. Stephen was focusing upon how God lives among us. The Jews totally understood step one and two but utterly rejected step three, i.e., the Incarnation of Jesus. Recounting history was not his point; recounting God-with-us was the point.
Very often we preach about living well, how to have a good family, ethics, etc. I think what we really need to be hearing is the same message that reaches back to the garden. God still wants to walk with us in the garden in the cool of the day. That message is powerful in any culture at any time. It is as valuable to the homeless as it is the rich; it is as significant to the Caucasian as it is the Asian. God still wants a relationship with his creation. Everything else falls out from that; it is the central point. If we lose it, we become a self-help association or country club. If we lose it, we lose the power of the gospel. If we lose it, we lose our identity -- just like Stephen's Jewish audience lost theirs and therefore became content to be the maintainers of the buildings where God used to live rather than the community where God now lives.
The conclusion of the sermon, however, is what has has always grabbed me. I would have preached on through the exile and return; Stephen cut off the story of the Jews at the building of the temple (900 years before Jesus). He jumped straight from the temple to resisting the Holy Spirit. I never understood that until I spent years in the Torah; now it makes more sense.
The message of the rescue from Egypt was that God wants to live with his people. That was provided for by the tabernacle and then the temple and then Jesus. It is a logical sequence once the primary point is understood. Stephen was focusing upon how God lives among us. The Jews totally understood step one and two but utterly rejected step three, i.e., the Incarnation of Jesus. Recounting history was not his point; recounting God-with-us was the point.
Very often we preach about living well, how to have a good family, ethics, etc. I think what we really need to be hearing is the same message that reaches back to the garden. God still wants to walk with us in the garden in the cool of the day. That message is powerful in any culture at any time. It is as valuable to the homeless as it is the rich; it is as significant to the Caucasian as it is the Asian. God still wants a relationship with his creation. Everything else falls out from that; it is the central point. If we lose it, we become a self-help association or country club. If we lose it, we lose the power of the gospel. If we lose it, we lose our identity -- just like Stephen's Jewish audience lost theirs and therefore became content to be the maintainers of the buildings where God used to live rather than the community where God now lives.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Acts 2:14-47; The Message
I've heard many messages throughout the years directed at evangelism. The sermons and classes range from "come be a part of our great community" to "get out of hell" to "this is the best life you can have now" to "health and wealth". It makes us sound so Walmart. "If you want it, we got it. We can meet every need and make this fun at the same time. You are a consumer and we have what you want."
Peter wasn't preaching any of those messages. His singular point was Jesus. This was the son of God that we crucified but that God exalted by resurrection. Respond to this man. Then God will forgive you of your mistakes and empower you to be different by placing his Spirit in you.
We can claim that we have adjusted the message to be a better cultural fit, but I think that is an excuse. Paul preached to both Jew and Gentile. His approach would vary but his core message never did.
Perhaps the real issue here is not so much what our ministers and our churches preach in order to gain members but rather what do I preach by my life? Does my life show that my primary concern is being just good enough to not be condemned to hell? Is the message I exude simply "I love my community"? (which sounds a lot like "I love my bank"). Or maybe "this is a really good life?" All of those are open to subjectivity; each can be debated. The life that states "I follow Jesus", however, is a life that preaches a relationship. It might include all the other messages but they are quite secondary to the message of life with God.
This Christianity thing is about a man, a person named Jesus. Everything else flows from that one point. Anything else as our primary message means that we are unfaithful to that man and it is no longer Christianity.
Peter wasn't preaching any of those messages. His singular point was Jesus. This was the son of God that we crucified but that God exalted by resurrection. Respond to this man. Then God will forgive you of your mistakes and empower you to be different by placing his Spirit in you.
We can claim that we have adjusted the message to be a better cultural fit, but I think that is an excuse. Paul preached to both Jew and Gentile. His approach would vary but his core message never did.
Perhaps the real issue here is not so much what our ministers and our churches preach in order to gain members but rather what do I preach by my life? Does my life show that my primary concern is being just good enough to not be condemned to hell? Is the message I exude simply "I love my community"? (which sounds a lot like "I love my bank"). Or maybe "this is a really good life?" All of those are open to subjectivity; each can be debated. The life that states "I follow Jesus", however, is a life that preaches a relationship. It might include all the other messages but they are quite secondary to the message of life with God.
This Christianity thing is about a man, a person named Jesus. Everything else flows from that one point. Anything else as our primary message means that we are unfaithful to that man and it is no longer Christianity.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Joshua 1:1-9; Spirit or Word?
Lately I have spent a lot of time reading and debating with myself over decision-making and the will of God. Does God speak to everyone? Anyone? Does he guide by opening and closing doors? Does he guide by his Word or by his Spirit? Since that is in my mind, it jumps off the page to me that God spoke of both his word and his presence in leading Joshua. Here it is obviously not one or the other but both. Joshua was strictly told to study and keep the word of God; his confidence and boldness, however, was to come from the presence of God. It seems to be more of a "both / and" rather than "either / or" situation.
Culture seems to influence us more than we like to admit. The present norm on our college campuses seems to be a fear of anything that looks institutional and an embrace of anything that looks mystic. Hence, it is much more en vogue to talk about relying on the spirit of God rather than spend time reading and meditating on the written word. It is also a lot less work to wait on a sign from God rather than seek wisdom. Yet, Joshua received a direct revelation from God that told him to pursue one and trust the other. He was not told "just trust me" nor was he told "just follow this." Both aspects were critical to his success in life.
I think all of us are not only influenced by our society but by our personal tendencies to lean towards one side or the other. The key seems to be to diagnose which way I am leaning and force myself to return to a balance of the two.
Culture seems to influence us more than we like to admit. The present norm on our college campuses seems to be a fear of anything that looks institutional and an embrace of anything that looks mystic. Hence, it is much more en vogue to talk about relying on the spirit of God rather than spend time reading and meditating on the written word. It is also a lot less work to wait on a sign from God rather than seek wisdom. Yet, Joshua received a direct revelation from God that told him to pursue one and trust the other. He was not told "just trust me" nor was he told "just follow this." Both aspects were critical to his success in life.
I think all of us are not only influenced by our society but by our personal tendencies to lean towards one side or the other. The key seems to be to diagnose which way I am leaning and force myself to return to a balance of the two.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Romans 8:1-17; Spirit Mind
Often I have read this and walked away understanding that we should not live according to the sinful nature. Yet, there is much more being said.
To live by the sinful nature is not a reference to those who gave up on God and turned their lives over to sin. Those were dealt with in chapter one. This is a discussion of each of us who tries to live for God and fails. We often fail because of the way we go about it. Trying to please him based upon doing a list of things to avoid is destined to fail; all it does is focus my thoughts upon what not to do. Then my mind is stuck with negative thoughts and images. It consumes and controls me. The end result is a mind that is "hostile to", "does not submit to" and "cannot please God." All of those are the exact opposite of what I seek by all my efforts in following the rules in the first place!
The text is pushing me to be spirit led. This sounds so ethereal and mystic. Yet Paul says that it involves the control of my mind, living out the righteous requirements of the law in my body and understanding my identity as a beloved child of God rather than a fearful servant trying to live up to a standard.
How counter-intuitive. All that is in me thinks that improvement should come through working harder at completing steps or a list. The text says that improvement comes through a mind and body controlled not be me but by the Spirit of God. My job is focusing upon the lead of the Spirit; the Spirit's job is to control my heart and mind.
To live by the sinful nature is not a reference to those who gave up on God and turned their lives over to sin. Those were dealt with in chapter one. This is a discussion of each of us who tries to live for God and fails. We often fail because of the way we go about it. Trying to please him based upon doing a list of things to avoid is destined to fail; all it does is focus my thoughts upon what not to do. Then my mind is stuck with negative thoughts and images. It consumes and controls me. The end result is a mind that is "hostile to", "does not submit to" and "cannot please God." All of those are the exact opposite of what I seek by all my efforts in following the rules in the first place!
The text is pushing me to be spirit led. This sounds so ethereal and mystic. Yet Paul says that it involves the control of my mind, living out the righteous requirements of the law in my body and understanding my identity as a beloved child of God rather than a fearful servant trying to live up to a standard.
How counter-intuitive. All that is in me thinks that improvement should come through working harder at completing steps or a list. The text says that improvement comes through a mind and body controlled not be me but by the Spirit of God. My job is focusing upon the lead of the Spirit; the Spirit's job is to control my heart and mind.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Prayer; Luke 11:1-13
They asked for a lesson in prayer. As is typical for Jesus, he responded in ways they probably never expected.
First he prays very simply and straightforward. No fluff or beauty here, just clear communication.
Then he puts a line in the middle of the prayer that placed responsibility back on us. "Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us." I would have preferred just "forgive us our sins". The second part of the sentence clearly places responsibility on me for my own actions.
At the end of it all he concludes with giving the Holy Spirit to those who petition. My initial reaction is "where did that come from?" Yet perhaps it is not an "add on" at the end but rather the central theme all along.
Prayer, true heart level prayer, is about a relationship. It is about connecting my spirit with the Spirit of God. It is intertwined with my daily life and actions (forgiveness). But above all, it is the goal of piety and prayer.
First he prays very simply and straightforward. No fluff or beauty here, just clear communication.
Then he puts a line in the middle of the prayer that placed responsibility back on us. "Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us." I would have preferred just "forgive us our sins". The second part of the sentence clearly places responsibility on me for my own actions.
At the end of it all he concludes with giving the Holy Spirit to those who petition. My initial reaction is "where did that come from?" Yet perhaps it is not an "add on" at the end but rather the central theme all along.
Prayer, true heart level prayer, is about a relationship. It is about connecting my spirit with the Spirit of God. It is intertwined with my daily life and actions (forgiveness). But above all, it is the goal of piety and prayer.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Spirit led
I the first four chapters of Luke, the Spirit causes an old man to be in the right place at the right time to see the baby Jesus in the temple, affirms Jesus at his baptism, is proclaimed to be a new part of the upcoming ministry of Jesus, leads Jesus into the desert where he is tempted and leads him back again to Galilee. Over an over there is a combination of leading and then giving the words to speak. He gives direction, purpose (4:43, Jesus said his purpose was to preach the good news of the kingdom).
So how led am I? Do I hold God back by refusing to open my mouth and share what I have seen and heard? Do I listen to that inner voice, those inner nudges to go (be led) to certain people or places?
I fear that often I still preach the message of John (baptism for repentance and forgiveness) rather than the message of Jesus (baptism for the Holy Spirit that leads and moves us to speak).
So how led am I? Do I hold God back by refusing to open my mouth and share what I have seen and heard? Do I listen to that inner voice, those inner nudges to go (be led) to certain people or places?
I fear that often I still preach the message of John (baptism for repentance and forgiveness) rather than the message of Jesus (baptism for the Holy Spirit that leads and moves us to speak).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)