thinking.about:jesus

I am reading Brian McLarens book “everything must change” now. To find out his opinion on what needs to change in the church. Also to not be dependent on somebody else’s opinion on this book. As he writes in the first chapter: “…you can Google my name and find websites and blogs from fundamentalist groups who consider me the son of Satan or on the wrong side of both the “culture war” and “truth war”.

Now I personally wonder, why he doesn’t clearly give his standpoint on the “hot-button issues” as he calls them (My guess is that this shows his frustration, that there are more important questions that are not being asked.) . In my eyes, there would be more evangelical Christians listening to him, if he would just - at least in a short sentence - put these things straight. Now a friend of mine had the chance to talk to Brian personally recently. So if you might have wondered: he did say that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle and that salvation comes alone through faith in the propitiary death of Christ on the cross (he said that literally). Maybe that helps some people to listen in on his message to the church.

I think that he got too popular to pass off what he says on the basis of some well-intentioned criticism. Because maybe, after all, he has something to say that we might benefit from…so what is this book about?

To sum it up, the book deals with two questions. One: what are the world’s biggest problems, and two: how would (or does) Jesus adress these problems, or which solution does he give for them. These are good questions to ask, and they haven’t been asked enough among evangelical Christians. Can one be a Christian, and not care about issues as poverty and social injustice? Doesn’t God show - especially in the OT - that he does care about it? Do we (the church) then have a responsibility towards these things? Or is our mission confined to the spiritual realm?  Before anyone judges Brian Mclaren for asking these questions, I would be very interested to hear some of their answers!

In  this category, I want to just quote some of the things from “everything must change” and comment on it. I don’t want to do deep analysis, but pick some things that might be of interest. After all, my desire is to promote thinking, learning and growing for myself and all who will read it.

In part 1, chapter 5, MacLaren writes: “More and more reflective Christian leaders are beginning to realize that for the millions of young adults who dropped out of their churches in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the Christian religion appears to be a failed religion. And for a reason not unlike the one expressed by the young healthcare worker from Khayelitsha: it has specialized in dealing with “spiritual needs” to the exlusion of physical and social needs. [comment: That statement would be hard to prove/disprove. Is that really the reason why many young people leave the church? I doubt it - especially here in Germany.] It has specialized in people’s destination in the afterlife but has failed to adress significant social injustices in this life. It has focused on “me” and “my soul” and “my spiritual life” and “my eternal destiny”, but it has failed to address the dominant societal and global realities of their lifetime: systemic injustice, systemic poverty, systemic ecological crisis, systemic dysfunctions of many kinds.”

Some statements: First, I agree that it would be wrong to disconnect the spiritual from the physical and social. Biblical Christianity does definitely know nothing of that kind of mindset. Second, the point that it is not only about ’spiritual’ things, but that it is about ‘me and myself’ is a very good one. Maybe someone has asked you this question before: if someone desires to be saved from sin, death and hell to a blessed life with God and eternal bliss in heaven - is that not very selfish? So the observation is very good. Someone said that one of the principles that young converts need to be taught is: “nothing that is selfish is Christian”. And it is true - the Jesus of the Bible will bring us salvation from selfishness and set us free to seek the welfare of others more than our own. The constant focus on self - even it is spiritual needs - is wrong and sinful.

As long as a Christian, or a church, just focuses on himself/itself, he is in a state of spiritual immaturity as were the Corinthian Christians, who were in need of Paul’s exhortation to seek the benefit of others, which is the essence of true love.

Thirdly, is he right when he says that the church failed to address the issues mentioned above? I disagree! The Bible emphasizes the spiritual realm (man’s relationship with God) as the basis of the physical realm (man’s relationship with man). So when I adress a spiritual issue in someones life, I am addressing his physical life as well. His spirituality is supposed to touch every area of his life. So all evangelizing and all teaching and disciple-making that equipped people to be faithful spouses, honest politicians, fair employers has been successful in dealing with systematic injustice etc. Because any evil system will be attacked through the Gospel message which will in turn destroy that system as individuals who make up that system and keep it running let the spiritual message penetrage their hearts.

Last night I watched ‘everything is spiritual’ from Rob Bell together with my wife. In this DVD-message, Rob Bell talks about the creation account and what part we as human beings play in that account. Besides sharing some mysteries from the world of physics in order to cause us to marvel at the Maker, he comes to this conclusion:

a) Man is the only part of creation that was created 100 % spiritual (as God and the angels) and 100 % physical (as animals, plants and all matter).

b) Thus, since every human is both spiritual and physical, it all comes down to having your eyes opened to who you are and which realms/realities/dimensions you should think/believe/think in.

To make it short: while a) is true, b) is not a correct conclusion. The simple fact he overlooked was the fall of man! The Bible makes it clear that, while we were created originally as Rob Bell describes it, we fell from this kind of life, which is the reason people do not experience the spiritual dimension of life. If it was just as Rob Bell put it, the death of Christ wouldn’t be necessary.

Paul teaches pretty clearly, that we are born (spiritually) dead, and Jesus points to the necessity of being born from above, or, again. He said that we have to be born again, by the Spirit, in order to SEE the kingdom of God, that is, the spiritual reality/dimension. So my conclusion: this teaching gives a very good introduction…to Genesis 1 and 2. But to stop there is to not cross the line between Judaism and Christianity.

Schonmal gefragt, wie es möglich ist, dass Jesus am Freitag starb, am Sonntag auferstand, und dabei 3 Tage und 3 Nächte tot gewesen sein soll? Hier ist die Antwort: er starb nicht am Freitag…

Jesu Leiden, Tod und Auferstehung fielen in die Zeit des Passahfestes. Dieses bestand aus dem eigentlichen, eintägigen Passah und dem direkt darauffolgenden, 7-tägigen Fest der ungesäuerten Brote, wobei der erste dieser 7 Tage ebenfalls als ein „Sabbat“ galt (3. Mose 23,6-8). Dieser Sabbat fiel in diesem Jahr auf einen Donnerstag (der große Sabbattag aus Johannes 19,31).

Die Neues Leben Übersetzung gibt hier korrekt wieder: “Die führenden Männer des jüdischen Volkes wollten die Gekreuzigten nicht bis zum nächsten Tag, einem Sabbat - der wegen des Passahfestes noch dazu ein besonderer Sabbat war, am Kreuz hängen lassen.” (Weil der nächste Tag ein Sabbat war, denken die Meisten, dass es sich demnach bei Jesu Todestag um einen Freitag gehandelt haben muss.)

Was man wissen muss, ist dass das Passahfest oft einfach zum Fest der ungesäuerten Brote dazu gerechnet wurde (was von der inhaltlichen Bedeutung her auch Sinn macht). Man sieht das in Markus 14,12: “Am ersten Tag des Fests der ungesäuerten Brote, dem Tag, an dem die Passahlämmer geopfert wurden, fragten die Jünger Jesus: Wo sollen wir hingehen und das Passahmahl vorbereiten?”

Jüdische Feste beginnen am Abend des Vortages und enden am darauf folgenden Sonnenuntergang. Demnach feierte Jesus das Passah mit seinen Jüngern an einem Dienstag Abend, wurde in der Nacht auf Mittwoch überliefert, Mittwoch Mittags gekreuzigt, und Abends ins Grab gelegt, bevor der Sabbat (also der erste Tag des Festes der ungesäuerten Brote) begann. Dann war sein Leib drei Tage und drei Nächte im Grab, und er auferstand Samstag Abends. Als die Frauen Sonntags Morgens zum Grab kamen, war dieses bereits leer.

 Leider hat die Kirchentradition auch in diesem Fall den Eindruck hinterlassen, dass man nur bibelgläubiger Christ sein kann, wenn man nicht bis drei zählen kann/darf.

So, hier isser endlich - mein erster deutscher Eintrag. Ein Auszug aus meinen Predigtnotizen für den Jugendgottesdienst gleich.

Jesus teilte als Gottes Sohn die Herrlichkeit des Vaters. Als er auf die Erde kam, kam er, um die Herrlichkeit Gottes auszustrahlen. In Johannes 1,14 schreibt Johannes über Jesus: „Und das Wort wurde Fleisch und wohnte unter uns, und wir haben seine Herrlichkeit angeschaut, eine Herrlichkeit als eines Eingeborenen vom Vater, voller Gnade und Wahrheit.“ Johannes sagt hier, worin er ganz besonders die Herrlichkeit Gottes gesehen hat: darin, dass Jesus voller Gnade und Wahrheit war.

Es gab sicherlich besondere Momente, in denen Gottes Herrlichkeit auf übernatürliche Weise sichtbar wurde. Zum Beispiel auf dem Berg der Verklärung. Da wurde Jesus vor den Augen von Petrus, Johannes und Jakobus verwandelt. Sein Angesicht leuchtete wie die Sonne und seine Kleider wurden weiß wie das Licht.

Aber ich glaube, dass es Jesu Charakter, sein Leben und sein Dienst an den Menschen waren, die Gottes Herrlichkeit genauso zeigten. In 2. Korinther 4,6 schreibt Paulus: „Denn Gott, der gesagt hat: Aus Finsternis wird Licht leuchten! Er ist es, der in unseren Herzen aufgeleuchtet ist zum Lichtglanz der Erkenntnis der Herrlichkeit Gottes im Angesicht Jesu Christi.“ Wo findet man Gnade und Wahrheit? Wo sieht man Gottes Herrlichkeit? In Jesu Gesicht. In seinen Augen. In seinem Lächeln. In seinen Worten.

Darin wie er Sünder anschaut: „Als er aber die Volksmengen sah, wurde er innerlich bewegt über sie, weil sie erschöpft und verschmachtet waren wie Schafe, die keinen Hirten haben.“ (Matthäus 9,36) „Und als er ausstieg, sah er eine große Volksmenge, und er wurde innerlich bewegt über sie und heilte ihre Kranken.“ (14,14)

In der Bibel steht nirgendwo, dass Jesus lächelte oder lachte. Aber:

Die Bibel sagt, dass Jesus Gott ist. Und Gott tut beides. Im Segen Aarons, mit dem sie das Volk segnen sollten, heißt es: „Der HERR segne dich und behüte dich! Der HERR lasse sein Angesicht über dir leuchten und sei dir gnädig! Der HERR erhebe sein Angesicht auf dich und gebe dir Frieden!“ (4. Mose 6,24-26) Das ‘leuchtende Angesicht’ ist nichts anderes, als ein strahlendes Gesicht – ein freudiges Lächeln. Wenn Jesus Gott perfekt wiedergespiegelt hat, dann hat er gelächelt und gestrahlt.

Außerdem sagt die Bibel, dass Jesus vollkommen Mensch ist. Ein Mensch, der nicht lächelt oder lacht ist kein Mensch. Er ist ein Unmensch. Oder ein Roboter…

Jesus weint. Jesus lächelt. Jesus spricht. Jesus lebt. Jesus ist Gott. In diesem Sinne: Frohe Ostern! (Das Wort ‘Ostern’ kommt übrigens nicht von irgendeiner heidnischen Göttin ‘Ostera’, sondern von ‘eos’/'eostere’, was ‘Sonnenaufgang’ bedeutet. Deswegen heißt der Osten auch Osten, weil da die Sonne aufgeht. Die Christen erinnern sich an die Frauen, die bei Sonnenaufgang zum leeren Grab kamen.) Er ist auferstanden….

…ihr könnt natürlich auch gerne auf Deutsch comments schreiben! Die ersten deutschen Beiträge kommen bestimmt! Einen gesegneten Karfreitag! (Karfreitag kommt übrigens von althochdeutsch “kara”, Klage, Trauer, Kummer)

This day is good. It is a day in which we remember that which was necessary to save sinners, and to change them into free, happy, God-lovers. The atonement of Jesus. His sufferings, his death on the cross. Reason enough to bless you with a couple of quotes:

“Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree.” 1 Peter 2:24

The Cross of Jesus is the revelation of God’s judgment on sin. Never tolerate the idea of martyrdom about the Cross of Jesus Christ. The Cross was a superb triumph in which the foundations of hell were shaken. There is nothing more certain in Time or Eternity than what Jesus Christ did on the Cross: He switched the whole of the human race back into a right relationship with God. He made Redemption the basis of human life, that is, He made a way for every son of man to get into communion with God.

The Cross did not happen to Jesus: He came on purpose for it. He is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” The whole meaning of the Incarnation is the Cross. Beware of separating God manifest in the flesh from the Son becoming sin. The Incarnation was for the purpose of Redemption. God became incarnate for the purpose of putting away sin; not for the purpose of Self-realization. The Cross is the centre of Time and of Eternity, the answer to the enigmas of both.

The Cross is not the cross of a man but the Cross of God, and the Cross of God can never be realized in human experience. The Cross is the exhibition of the nature of God, the gateway whereby any individual of the human race can enter into union with God. When we get to the Cross, we do not go through it; we abide in the life to which the Cross is the gateway.

The centre of salvation is the Cross of Jesus, and the reason it is so easy to obtain salvation is because it cost God so much. The Cross is the point where God and sinful man merge with a crash and the way to life is opened - but the crash is on the heart of God.” (Oswald Chambers; My Utmost for His Highest)

„What was the death of Christ? „A martyrdom,“ cries modern thought. „A mischance in an unenlightened age,“ replies the reviewer. „An outcome of all such efforts to battle with evil,“ says the broad-church teacher. „A SACRIFICE!“ thunders this Book. A voluntary sacrifice! A voluntary sacrifice, by which sin has been borne and put away. Here we rest, content to abide, in a world of mystery, at the foot of one mystery more, which, despite all its mystery, answers the cry of a convicted conscience, and sheds the peace of heaven through our hearts.“ (F. B. Meyer; The Way Into the Holiest; Commentary on Hebrews)

Have a good friday! (This expression comes from Martin Luther, by the way: Guter Freitag)

The emerging conversation has polarized alot of Christians. Some of that polarisation is good. Some is bad. My idea is, to take Paul’s approach: Test all things, and keep the good stuff. Maybe you’ve heard this line: “Some people say, the emergent church has some good points - but so does a porcupine!” Well, to be honest, I don’t think that this is the best way to deal with it. What we should do in my opinion is this:

- Differentiate. Between people and their reputation. Between the different ‘lanes’ within the emergent movement. (For this, I recommend Mark Driscolls teaching from the “Religion saves”-series on the emergent church. Go to marshillchurch.org, you’ll find it there somehow.

- See that most movements are reactionary. The emergent group reacts to something. What are the bad sides, downsides, weak points of modern day evangelicalism?

- List those things that caused the emerging church to emerge.

- Think about where we need to grow, change, and learn.
If we do that, we will be benefited from this movement. Or we just continue to bash everything we feel threatened by.

Here are some of the topics: dealing with the big issues in the world (war, pollution, corruption, etc.); social responsibility; the humanity of Jesus; different ways to do church; dealing with questions, doubts, etc.; facing the challenges of our culture; Christianity as a ‘way’; any other suggestions?

I will start do deal with these issues one by one. And I believe it will be helpful and cause us to grow. Let’s face it: even though not ‘everything has to change’ (Brian McLaren) - some things do! And our attitudes might be among these things…

Just a short quote from Francis Schäffer that goes along with some stuff I wrote about before: “If we forget the absolute uniqueness of Christ’s death we are in heresy. As soon as we set aside or minimise, as soon as we cut down in any way, as the liberals of all kinds do in their theology, on the uniqueness and substitutionary character of Christ’s death, our teaching is no longer Christian. On the other hand, let us remember the other side of this matter. If we forget the relationship to us as Christians of this order, then we have a sterile orthodoxy, and we have no true Christian life. Christian life will wither and die, spirituality in any true biblical sense will come to an end.” (from “True Spirituality”)

Doctrine is important, but we have to ask and seek in order to bring it as deep as possible into our daily lives.

Now this is another question which I’ve been thinking about lately. I am meeting with some young guys from our Youth Group every week. It is a leadership training, where I want not only to teach them things, but I want to think stuff through with them. (That is because I feel that the statement is true: The first generation believes it, the second generation assumes it, and the third generation denies it. Whoever said that…it’s true.) They need to develop their own views and convictions to be a real benefit to the body of Christ.

We are going through different books together, right now it’s Calvary Distinctives. Now at Calvary Chapel we are big on the three different Greek prepositions which point to the different ways God relates to us/works through us by the person of the Holy Spirit. But this time I really wanted to get down to the knitty gritty: Who is this…Encarnación? No, but seriously, I wanted to find out with them what these things practically mean for us. We made a list that looked like this:

para (beside): conviction of sin, encouragement, comfort; Jesus said to his disciples about the comforter: He will be with you always.

epi (upon): annointing, empowering, equipping, authority (which here refers to a supernatural authority, independent from the question if it’s backed up by the character of the person)

en (in): indwelling, sanctification, personal growth, authority (which here refers to the authority that comes with integrity)

Now there were actually two questions which came up in my mind: First, is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit only a ’spiritual reality’, or is it ‘practical or nothing’? Can I say that God lives in a person, or is at home there, even when there is no practical implications such as repentance, personal growth, sanctification? Secondly, and this is a conclusive question: if it not so much meant as a theological concept or spiritual reality, then couldn’t I say that God also indwelt believers under the Old Covenant?

I’ve been taught, that the indwelling is a mark of the New Covenant, made possible only by the blood of Jesus. I always believed it, but never really studied that for myself. Is that true? One of the boys wrote me an eMail some days later, and asked me this same question. He read first Peter 1:11 and was wondering what the deal was. It is talking about the OT prophets there, and it says that they were “trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.” ‘In’ is of course the same Greek preposition.

So I thought about it and asked Dave Guzik to find an answer. He pointed me to the OT prophecies for the New Covenant. And it’s true, the Ezekiel and Jeremiah passages do speak about something inward rather than something outward. But did God really mean the indwelling, when he said that he would put his spirit inside them? Now please don’t get me wrong here! Of course I believe in the indwelling! I just wonder about it’s nature (see question 1), and about how unique it is to the New Covenant.

A day later, as I was reading in Ezekiel in the morning, I read this verse in my ‘today’s chapter’: “Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!” (18:31-32) Now God here tells them to go and get themselves a new heart and a new spirit. The only way in which this can make sense - and I believe that that’s the way it was meant in this context - is that this simply refers to a new attitude. So my question is this: could it be that the indwelling speaks very practically of ‘God in someones life’, made possible by that person through a changed attitude (repentance)? If the answer to that question is Yes, than of course this was also possible and available for a believer in the OT.

The point I am struggling with is this: imagine you were a very carnal Christian. There were not really any real outward implications of God dwelling in your life. Imagine you would travel back in time and see a man like Moses. A man deeply committed to God, walking with God and - in the truest sense of the word - a holy man. With the understanding of the indwelling as I have it now (as a doctrine), you could go to Moses as a carnal Christian and tell him, that God lives in your heart, is at home in your life, while in his live that wasn’t the case. I don’t know, but I wonder if God maybe wants us to think about him dwelling in our hearts in a more practical sense. When would you normally say, that someone lives in your heart? When you love him. Can you say: I don’t love him/her, but he/she lives in my heart? Not really…

I have to think now of the Corinthian church, who was very carnal, and to whom Paul wrote: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own” (1 Cor. 6:19) as a reason to not commit sexual sins. So maybe it is possible. But it is still very wrong (for which the Corinthian church is a perfect example) to seperate the spiritual reality from the lived-out practicality. Maybe someone can share his thoughts on this?

Last night we studied Exodus 33-34 in our Youth Group. It is a fascinating study, especially on the background of Israel’s naked dance around an Egyptian god. Moses is seen foreshadowing Christ’s mediating work in a beautiful way. Because Moses had found favor in the eyes of the Lord, God would ‘change His mind’ and dwell in the midst of the congregation, instead of the tent of meetings outside of the camp. Israel gets a completely fresh start as a result of Moses’ intercession. The ten commandments are given again, the covenant being renewed, the former plans of the tabernacle taken up again.

What an encouragement! For we are all idolaters. We all have turned back to Egypt in our hearts at times, we all have - secretly - carried some gods of Egypt with us on our journey with Jesus… Through the mediating work of Jesus - Christ as the High Priest - we all can have fresh starts. I think it is important to understand what Jon Courson points out: It is not Jesus’ words, with which he intercedes for us, but his wounds. When it says in Hebrews 7:25, “Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.”, it is not to be understood in a technical sense. I think that at this point we often make the mistake that we base a certain doctrine on one verse alone, which is never a good idea. When Christ intercedes for you and me, he doesn’t need to lose any words. “…he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. (…) But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.”  (9:24; 26) The Holy of Holies was not a place of prayer, it was a place of atonement. Jesus is not before the throne of grace pleading our case with words. It is his blood: “…Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” (12:24) To say that on top of the fact that he will always be as a lamb that has been slain, he would still have to add words of prayer and intercession takes away from the atonement. It is to say that his blood isn’t enough, he has to add words. So this thinking is not biblical and it is not logical, because we know that his blood is enough.

Well, anyways…actually I wanted to share something else. In verse 18 Moses asks: “Now show me your glory.” Up to this point, God had been speaking to Moses through an angel. Even though that is not in the text here, the Rabbis always understood it this way and it is stated three times in the New Testament (Acts 7:38; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2). Moses wasn’t satisfied to be lead into the promised land by an angel, he wanted God in their midst. He wasn’t satisfied to only hear from God through an angel. He wanted to see God.

Now he had seen alot of God’s glory, in the sense of the miraculous demonstrations of supernatural power and majesty. So what was he asking for? I believe he just wanted to go deeper. He wanted to know God in a deeper way. Which is remarkable, especially on the background of everything he already had experienced in the past. Many of us would be satisfied to see God work or manifest himself in supernatural ways. Moses didn’t want to see what God could do or even would do - he wanted to see God.

“Only do not let us make Moses talk like a metaphysician or a theological professor. Rather we should hear in his cry the voice of a soul thrilled through and through with the astounding consciousness of God’s favour, blessed with love-gifts in answered prayers, and yearning for more of that light which it feels to be life.” (Alexander Maclaren)

God told Moses that this was not possible in the fullest measure, because that would simply put Moses to death. But in his love he was willing to show Moses as much as was possible. Now check out what God shows Moses as an answer to his request to see God’s glory, his beauty: “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mery on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (…) And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”

Now without wanting to ellaborate much further, the observation is clear. Moses wants to see God’s glory, and God shows him as much as possible of that glory of His. He does it by a self-revelation, not to the eyes but to the ears of Moses. He doesn’t show Moses what he can do, but he tells him who he is in his relation to human beings. And I just think that this is God’s glory, that is his beauty. We are saved to the praise of the GLORY of his grace. To me, that is the most glorious thing I could ever imagine…