An open letter to the American Church

I write to you with humility due to a keen awareness of how fickle and fallible my past opinions have been. Yet now that I've exceeded the half-way mark of my life expectancy, I can speak with limited experience gleaned through decades of feeble attempts to chase after Jesus. I write to you with hopeful expectation that this generation of 20 somethings is not the church of the future, but the guiding light of today. I write with sadness, shame, assurance and exaltation at the current state of the Bride of Jesus, the single source of salvation in this world.

To you I would say the church is God's Kingdom. The pale rituals of church services, the vituperative debates of theologians, and the scandalous failures of leaders mask the divine glory at our fingertips. Nevertheless, it is still there for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. Those submitted to the patronage of Jesus will understand the quest of the master for global domination, not through power and violence but through weakness and an unmitigated commitment to love and truth. Through the cross of Jesus we not only experience the cleansing of our sin, but the eradication of the "self" which so drives us to degradation, violence, and self-loathing. Through the cross we see the brokenness of the human condition without losing sight of the imago dei embedded in each of His children. I call you to remember that you are not a member of a church but a citizen in a kingdom, the very child of divine royalty. Remember that while your church owns property, the kingdom claims dominion. While the church multiplies rules, the kingdom enforces laws. Yes, we are political in the deepest sense of the word—we create a recognizable community with our own set of laws, citizens, and social structures. Perhaps our ineffectiveness as a church is because we have denied being political all the while playing by the political rules of a secular society.

To you I would say claim your national spiritual heritage. A brief glance at church history will convince you that the Holy Spirit is always on the make but never equilaterally. In other words, he does different things with different people in different places at different times. Our nation has some unique blessings that can only be explained through the gift of the sovereign God. Paramount, perhaps, is our economic abundance, unparalleled in the history of humanity. Subconsciously we feel we have somehow earned this. What a ridiculous notion! This has led us to believe that our wealth is reward for us to enjoy. Rather, our wealth is a responsibility and like all other spiritual gifts it is to be expended for the benefit of the body. If the Christians of our nation take seriously this overabundant gift and stop our godless accumulation we could put a real dent in global poverty and make Jesus famous in the far-flung places of our world. The Jesus I read about in the gospels came to preach good news to the poor. So too today: if the Gospel is not good news to the poor it is not the good news of Jesus Christ.

To you I would say learn of the Holy Spirit. From Abraham to Jesus, it was the age of the Father. From Jesus to the 20^th century, it seemed to be the age of the son (at least the historical councils from Chalcedon on give him a lion's share of the attention). Now in the 21^st century, it appears to be the age of the Spirit. He is speaking loudly and in more diverse ways than ever. He is not the personal possession of the clergy. He is breaking out everywhere in creative ministries and works of power through ordinary people. If you are not hearing him speak to you today it is not because he is silent (for he never is), it is because you are not listening. It may be that you have too much noise in your life to hear anyone whisper or it may be that you have never trained your spiritual ear to hear his voice. Either way, hearing the Holy Spirit is not merely the birthright of every believer, it is one of the most crucial aspects of discipleship. You will never implement the potential of your created purpose until you learn to be led by the Spirit of God.

Finally, I would suggest that the church must eradicate biblical illiteracy. Our own ignorance is killing us. When Paul described the spiritual armament of the Christian, the only offensive weapon he depicted was the sword of the word of God. This was what Jesus used himself in the onslaught of the Evil one in the desert. If you do not know the Scriptures, you are severely limiting the ability of the Holy Spirit to teach you, train you, prompt you, or convict you. The Bible is not optional for the Christian; it is the heart of God inscribed on parchment where we can get at it. I know of no Christian leader I have any respect for that does not have an admirable grasp of the counsel of God in the Bible. You twenty-somethings all have opinions about how the church should be run and what we who have gone before you have done so terribly wrong. So now back up your smack with wisdom from God's word. Until you have something to say that comes from the mouth of God, perhaps you should keep yours shut. I say this without an ounce of anger or bitterness; rather I say it with sadness. I desperately want to hear what you have to say—I need what you have to say—but I haven't the time, energy, or patience for another uninformed outburst that lacks God's authority.

Well, thank you for your patience at these ramblings that bordered on ranting. I can tell you that if I had one last letter to write with the modicum of wisdom forged through decades, this would be it.

Luke’s List of Nations, Acts 2:9-13

Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does this mean?" Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They have had too much wine.'" (9–13)

This list is fascinating. Technically, it is not a list of languages but political regions. If you play "dot to dot" with them on a map of the Middle East, you will draw a meandering line that generally flows from North to South and then East to West. It begins with the Parthians in the Far East, and three kingdoms under their control—Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia. In the first century b.c. Parthia captured the Roman military standards, declaring itself Rome's rival in the East. There was hardly another nation that posed more difficulties for Roman domination. Placing Parthia first in this lists, therefore, established a shrill tone for the text. Our list ends with Rome, preceded by nine regions under their control. It would be a neat chiasm were it not for this anomaly: Why does Luke place Judea between Mesopotamia and Cappadocia and not mention Syria, the actual political center of the region?

One would expect a first-century list of this region to include Syria and perhaps even skip Judea since it was under Syrian provenance (Josephus, Wars 2.12.1 §226; Philo, Flacc 29). This state of affairs, of course, galled the Jews. According to the them, the greater part of Syria was promised to them by God: "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, 'To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates,'" (Gen 15:18; cf. Exod 23:31; Deut 11:24; Josh 1:4). Much of it had been, in fact, controlled under David and Solomon. Hence, it is not surprising that some Messianic expectations predicted the control of Syria according to the ancient promise of God: "In that day people will come to you from Assyria and the cities of Egypt, even from Egypt to the Euphrates and from sea to sea and from mountain to mountain" (Micah 7:12; cf. Zech 9:10; Sir 44:21). Moreover, the Messiah would bring back the dispersed tribes into the original boundaries of the Promised Land:

In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea. He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. (Isa 11:11–12)

The return of the exiles was the single most important Messianic function in the OT (Isa 14:2; 43:57; 49:818; Jer 30:3; 31:825; Exe 11:1621; 28:2426; 37:114; Hosea 1:1011), intertestamental literature (Tobit 13:15; 2 Esd 13:39–47; 1 En. 90:33; Bar 4:36–37; 5:5–9; Philo, Praem. 28.164;), and rabbinic literature (b. Ber 12b; b. Pesaḥ 88a; b. Sanh 110b; Esth. Rab 1:8). Luke's claim here that all these diaspora Jews were dwelling (katoikeō, see ftn 11) in Jerusalem would hardly go unnoticed. The Messianic age had dawned through the coming of the Spirit and the promises of God were reaching their fulfillment. Tertullian (c. 200 a.d.) took it this way:

For upon whom else have the universal nations believed, but upon the Christ who is already come? For whom have the nations believed—Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and they who inhabit Mesopotamia, Armedain, Phrygia, Cappadocia, and they who dwell in Putus and Asia and Pamphylia, tarriers in Egypt, and the inhabitants of the regions of Africa which is beyond Cyrene, Romans and proselytes, an, in Jerusalem, Jews, and all other nations. (Adv. Jud. 7 [ANF])

Taking this list as a Messianic claim would explain three anomalies of this passages: (v. 1) "When the day of Pentecost came" (sumpleroō, lit. 'was fulfilled') indicates a fullness of time, not merely a point on the calendar. (v. 5) These pilgrims are described as "residing" in Jerusalem as an allusion to the return from diaspora. And (v. 9) Judea is listed rather than Syria as one would expect during the reign of the Messiah over Israel. The odd element that would strike Luke's readers is that rather than undoing the diaspora to spread the Kingdom of God, the Messiah used the diaspora as the very element which effected the spread of God's Kingdom. It is not the collection of saints in a geo-political body that expands the Kingdom. It is the subversive leavening influence of believers, seeded in the kingdoms of this world that undermines the dominating powers of Rome and spreads the fame of Yahweh. This list from Luke is anti-Roman political propaganda which advocates kenotic politics at its finest.

Pentecost is not the birthday of the church

It is a common misconception that the church began in Acts 2 when the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues. Peter preached the first gospel message and 3,000 responded in faith and were baptized. But if you asked them what they were doing, they would not think they were starting something new. Rather, they believed they were fulfilling their destiny as the people of God by accepting their own Messiah in fidelity to the covenant of Abraham. They moved forward by going back to their ordained roots. They were not the church as opposed to Israel, but the church as the manifestation of God's plan for Israel. Pentecost neither started the church nor ended the nation. Rather, it continued the tradition, writing a new chapter in the eschatological history of God. In other words, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit did not create something new but renewed something old. As a result of this renewed Israel, the message, in the power of the Spirit, went to fourteen nations from across the Roman world. More nations could be mentioned, of course. These were merely representatives. In other words, Acts 2:9–11 is not a roll call but brush strokes to paint a portrait of an Israel that reached out to all tongues and nations and tribes. This too was very old, going back to the foundational promise Yahweh made to Abraham that he would be a blessing to all the nations of the world (Gen 12:3). Doing something new always means looking in the rearview mirror to be reminded of what the Holy Spirit has already been up to.

The interplay of baptism, the Holy Spirit, and salvation

Let's start with the crucial issue: We are saved when we are "sealed" with the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 1:13 says, "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit" (Cf. 2 Cor 1:22; Eph 4:30). Notice that the Spirit is granted when we believe: "By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive" (John 7:39); "Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?" (Gal 3:2; cf. v. 5; Acts 19:2); "God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth" (2 Thess 2:13). Few would dispute this clear scriptural teaching.

So what about baptism? The Bible links belief with baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12–13; 18:8; 19:4; Col 2:12). Again, this "belief" is not a theological stance on a point of Christian doctrine; it is obedience to the will of God. Baptism is thus a visible vehicle of faith. For example, in Acts 8:12 "When they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." The same is said of Simon Magus (Acts 8:13), Crispus (Acts 18:9), and these twelve disciples (Acts 19:4–5). Paul puts it this way: "Having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col 2:12). The notion that acts of faith (such as baptism) have no place in our conversion, that somehow belief is intellectual assent rather than submissive obedience, is anti-biblical and should be thoroughly rejected. As an act of faith, it was natural for the Apostles to connect baptism to conversion. Peter said, "This water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21). Paul wrote, "We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life (Rom 6:4). John cites Jesus, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5, see also Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Gal 3:27; Col 2:11–12). Those with a low view of immersion should reconsider their position based on the high position it repeatedly takes in Scripture. This is not our work for God but indeed his work in us through the power of the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5). Yes, the Holy Spirit is connected to baptism!

Obviously, the Holy Spirit is involved with the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Mt 3:11; Acts 1:5; 2:1-4; 10:44-46; 11:16). But the Spirit is also clearly connected with water baptism (Eph 4:5; 1 Cor. 12:13; Titus 3:5; John 3:5). This is natural enough since both the OT (Psa 46:4-5; Isa 32:15; 44:3; 55:1; 58:11; Eze 39:29; Joel 2:28) and NT (John 3:5-6; 7:38–39) describe the Holy Spirit in terms of working through or like water. Even more specifically, several "New Birth" texts mention both the water and Spirit as effective forces in the conversion process (John 3:3-7; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:3-7). But is this "water" merely a metaphor, or does it signify immersion? There is no question that the Holy Spirit is connected to immersion in Acts 2:38-39; 19:1-6 and 1 Cor 12:13. It seems fair, therefore, to interpret the other "water" passages as baptism. The bottom line is that the Holy Spirit is clearly connected with water baptism in the process of conversion.

So, belief, baptism and the Holy Spirit are all central to Christian conversion. The Holy Spirit, the true mark of a Christian (Rom 8:9; 2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13) is promised both through belief (John 7:38-39) and immersion (Acts 2:38-39). Baptism is not a work by which we earn the presence of the Holy Spirit. Rather it is an expression of our faith which causes us to open our lives to the Spirit's indwelling.

But what if a person is not immersed? Oddly, the NT never considers that options. Immersion was a normative conversion experience of early Christians. So we are asking a question the Bible is not designed to answer. That will require a bit of speculation. Be that as it may, let me offer my own firm conviction that conversion is about a relationship with the Father brokered by the Holy Spirit. It is not about rules or works, merit or legalism. The bottom line is that God wants a relationship with us and will do what it takes to make that happen. Perhaps a metaphor will help. Can a baby enter this world without passing through its mother's birth canal? Sure, we call it Caesarian Section. While it is not optimal, it is definitely possible. Medical doctors mastered this technique because of their commitment to life. Is God less interested in bringing life into the kingdom? It seems to me that the Holy Spirit is expert in the unexpected and abnormal. After all, most of our lives don't follow any kind of normal, predictable tract. So for those billions of believers who have had faith in the Lord Jesus, and confessed him as Lord, the Holy Spirit has sealed them. The plan was to do this commensurate with immersion, but this "norm" hardly restricts the Holy Spirit's work outside to fulfill the Father's passion to bring us under his loving rule and adopt us into his family.

Why is this long entry on the John 3:30 blog? There are two justifications. First, I get this question a lot so it probably deserves a thorough answer. On the one hand, some have difficulty with baptism playing any role in our salvation and I find that to be a mistake. On the other hand, some want to make baptism an entry requirement (kind of a secret handshake before admittance into the lodge), to which I am equally opposed. It seems to me that both positions have a mechanical view of salvation rather than a relational view. Salvation is neither a "zap" from God through our faith, nor is it a meritorious reward for jumping through the right hoops. Salvation is a relationship of submission to Jesus. If he increases and we decrease there is no problem in following him in Christian baptism where we die to self and live for him. Nor is there a problem admitting our own need for the Holy Spirit to do something extraordinary, unexpected, and beyond our abilities to predict, adjudicate, or control. To those on both sides of this issue I would humbly confess my own absolute failure at controlling my own life, let alone God's rescue of my soul.

To All You Wounded Warriors

At a recent mens retreat I had the privilege of being sharpened by a number of fellas who had true brokenness in their lives: Unfaithful wives, sexual addictions, violence in the home, anger management issues, failing parents, failed ministries. One old friend emailed me just to say thanks for the time we got to share together after years of lost contact. My final sentence to him was this: "From one wounded warrior to another: stand in the grace we have come to cling to, no longer out of theological commitment, but raw necessity." Look, I'm not OK and neither are you. We serve our king, not because we have earned the right, not because we have lived right, not because it is right, but because we have expended all our other resources and run out of options. As Peter said, "To whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life." Lord, all we can offer you is broken lives and wounded hearts, inflamed with the passion of one indiscriminately loved.

Why Republicans Hate Wal-Mart

Ok, so it's not Republicans who hate Wal-Mart, it is Evangelical Republicans but since these are synonymous terms I've simply conflated them. [Now that Bible-believing Democrats are irritated that I've excluded them from the 'camp' and Republicans are irritated that I've potentially opened the door to Democrats through a back-handed cynical comment we can all proceed a bit miffed yet paradoxically fully engaged.] Republicans hate Wal-Mart because of its 'liberal' stance of being pro-gay, as if the labor laws (or general human decency) could allow anything else [the same goes for the godless execs at Disney, McDonalds, Starbucks and a host of other worldly, pagan organizations]. In fact, any organization that supports Gay-rights, abortion, evolution, Obama, or anything that smacks of removing prayer, Bibles, Palin, or the American flag from public schools deserves not only our ire, but a good smack-down through a boycott by the 'moral majority' on the right. In fact, these petitions, boycotts, and public excoriation float freely through our churches right alongside other ethical mandates of moral living, corporate worship, global evangelism, and loving our enemies (no wait; scratch that last one…it interferes with our agenda).

Why is it that a Republican platform has been conflated with Christian principles? Well, partially because they overlap substantially. But most of the overlap deals with personal morality: Sexual ethics, faith in the creator God, love of the unborn. Yet much of the corporate Christian morality has been co-opted by the 'left'—Feeding the hungry, public health care, social justice of minorities. We need to take more serious stock of our stances. In Jesus' inaugural speech in Nazareth (Luke 4) he claimed God's anointing on his ministry to preach good news to the poor. Hence, one could conclude that any Christian message that is not good news to the poor is not the good news of Jesus Christ. If you want to hate Wal-Mart, hate them for this: they continue to seduce our society, including Evangelicals of all stripes, into a rampant materialism that is so grossly at odds with compassion, generosity, and global welfare, that it can only be contrary the core message of Jesus Christ. Wal-Mart, Disney, Starbucks, McDonalds, etc. promote a consumerism, individualism, gluttonous self-absorption that has destroyed the faith for far more people than homosexuality, abortion, evolution, communism, Victoria Secrets (just seeing if you're still paying attention) ever dreamed of. If you must be a hater, at least hate for the right reasons.

Truth be told, Democrats hate Wal-Mart too, but for different reasons; mostly their parasitical and imperialistic economic exploitation. So apparently both Democrats AND Republicans hate Wal-Mart, which explains why, as each lives so consistently with their own agenda, we have seen a decimating decline in Wal-Mart stock.

P.S. At least the Green Party is pleased with go-green bags.

Pacifism is NOT Passivism

Pacifism is not passivism—it is not sitting idly by while evil gains ground in this world. Pacifism is not being nice—it is an all out assault on systemic oppression and ill-conceived notions human responsibility to police other states and adjudicate others interests (especially when it is to our own economic advantage). Pacifism is not a spineless resignation—it is a deliberate methodology which calls attention to the injustices of this world. Pacifism is not quiet or nice—it is deliberately aggressive ideologically while refusing any right to retaliation; it deliberately provokes response (often violent) to force the "enemy" to put all his cards on the table for the watching world to witness. Pacifism is not an absence of anger—it is furious at the injustice of this world. If you are guilty of accusing pacifists of being angry, as if this is a contradiction in terms, then I personally apologize for not articulating our position more clearly. If you expected us to renounce imprecatory prayer, assertive articulation, deliberate instigation, stubborn implacability, and belligerent conviction, we have failed to communicate clearly enough what an actual pacifist is. For this we offer our sincere apology. Be deceived no longer.

So what is pacifism? It is the uncompromising realization that we as humans are incapable of bringing about justice through violent retaliation. Hence, we relinquish all such acts to God in his sovereign and eschatological plan of judgment, justice, and mercy. Indeed, God have mercy on us.

Objecting to Jesus?

Why on earth would the Jewish leaders object to Jesus exorcising a blind/mute (Matt 12:22)? Was this not an act of compassion? Would this not improve the Jewish community? Would this not lead to the praise of God? Actually, it led to the following question: "Could this be the Son of David?" with all its Messianic overtones. The leaders objected, not to an act of kindness, but to the fact that Jesus overstepped his bounds. Only certain "approved" exorcists were allowed to tinker with the social order, declare people healed, and reestablish community relationships. Simply put, Jesus assumed authority and thereby threatened their leadership.

This is clearly seen in Jesus' claim to have bound Satan as a prelude to inaugurating the kingdom of God. One might see this as merely a spiritual battle between good and evil inanimate forces. Such an anachronistic interpretation misses the point. Jews of the second temple period understood human governments to be the product of supernatural power carried out through human envoys. Hence the king of Israel was supposed to be Yahweh's representative and Rome, obviously, was of the Devil. Hence, when Jesus clearly demonstrates his authority over demonic forces, it sets the stage for a political confrontation with the powers under Satan's spell. No wonder they were quick to label Jesus as an envoy of Satan. If they lose that battle, the accusation will come back on them.

So what's the point? Our activities of compassion--those that welcome to the table ones oppressed by the Devil--are not harmless to the social order. We threaten to reorganize society by the power of God vested in us. So now, let's tinker away.

The Blessings of Baptism

1. It is the only religious ordinance (that I know of), that deals with guilt and shame equally at the same time. In the East, shame is the big issue--not measuring up to communal expectations. In the West, guilt is the primary issue, having crossed a line individually. Consider the wisdom of God to give us a practice that is capable of dealing with both our sociological and spiritual needs at once and across all cultural divides.
   

   
    

2. This 'enacted sinner's prayer' is far more memorable than any articulated prayer. Ask how many people remember what they 'said' when they converted; then ask how many remember where, when, and how they were baptized? God knows we are tactile. This is the perfect gift to help us remember our beginnings.
   

   
    

3. Furthermore, this 'sinner's prayer' is always said correctly. It is about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. You CAN NOT DO IT WRONG! I need that with all the stupid things I say.
   

   
    

4. It starts our Christian walk right. We begin by imitating Jesus in his salvific act. It brings us to 'dead' center in our theology so that our beginning in Christ aims at the core of Christianity as well as our ultimate destiny of resurrection.
   

   
    

5. The Scriptures bind together this gift with the promise of a cleansed conscience and the gift of the Holy Spirit. I want that!
   

 

I'm not so stricken with the question of 'only one way to convert'. I suspect God is far more creative than we give him credit for. However, given these five blessings of baptism, it boggles my mind why anyone would be contentious in refusing such a gift directly from the hand of Jesus, especially when it models the self-abnegation he enjoined on his disciples.

Does Confession of Sin bring Physical Healing?

James 5:15 suggests that the prayer of faith brings healing. Interestingly, this very unusual word for prayer is used only two other times and it is translated both times as "vow" (Acts 18:18; 21:23). This is, of course, accompanied by the Elders anointing the sick person with oil (v. 14) as well as confession of sins (v. 16). Thus it appears that this trio—Elders' oil, vow of faith, and the confession of sins—comprise a sacred request for healing. This raises a number of questions, but here I would like to address just one: the confession of sins as part of the healing process. I never anoint anyone with oil without first asking this question: Do you have any unconfessed sin in your life? There is simply too much power in the process of anointing to allow the infection of sin to be present with it. While sickness and sin are not always connected (cf. John 9:1-2), there certainly is Biblical precedent for connecting the two. Often sickness results from physiological causes of sin (anxiety, breaking the Sabbath principle, chemical abuse, etc), but there is also the spiritual curse of sin that affects the body. Paul explains that those who take the Lord' Supper improperly expose themselves to sickness or even death: "That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep" (1 Cor 11:30). Moreover, over half of the demonic episodes in the Gospels involve sicknesses of various sorts—blind, deaf, mute, epileptic, scoliosis. Hence, both demonization (often connected to sin) and unconfessed sin can cause sickness. Thus, the confession of sins seems to be essential to healing. What does this have to do with a blog about self-abnegation? Everything! Our road to healing involves revealing our secret sins and submitting to the community leaders. The reason many are still sick, even after praying to God for healing, is because their pride and self-dependence inhibits them from open confession and accountability which yields spiritual power even for the healing of the body. Obviously, we have no promises of health and wealth even if we are completely obedient to God's counsel. But many are suffering needlessly because they refuse to heed the word of God, denying themselves in order to receive God's blessing.