Danny J Bixby

>This is an excerpt from A New Kind of Christian by Brian McLaren. This book could quite possibly be one of the most important books written in the past several decades that few have ever heard of. You should read this book. It may stretch and challenge you.

I read this passage…somewhere, I have no idea where. It was years ago, and it has vividly stuck in my mind every since I first read it from some blog or compilation or whatever. I read A New Kind of Christian for the first time last week and was stunned and pleased to see this in it. I knew I had never read this book, but I know I had read this story. It was a great case of literary deja vu for me and sparked my previous post on syncretism.

So I want to share it. If you never read the book, at least you’ll read this. Maybe it will stick with you as it has done with me. Or maybe you’ll actually go read this book and see how deeper the story gets than just this one part…

“I got a call one Friday morning saying that a group of Native American pastors was coming to D.C. for some special meetings and their accommodations fell through. Would I be willing to host them? I said sure and that evening I picked up seven of them at the airport. I’ll never forget the crowded ride home in the van — I don’t think I’ve ever been around such happy, fun loving me. The jokes and puns and laughter just flowed. When we got home and they saw my guitars and mandolin, they immediately started to play and sing. I never would have guessed that Indians like cowboy music!

On Saturday they had their meetings downtown, and then they did some sightseeing. On Sunday we sang an old country and western gospel song together at my church, with me playing the mandolin. It was a riot, the people just loved it. The guys had to leave on Monday morning, so we stayed up well after midnight that Sunday night, singing and talking. When the music quieted down, I asked them a question: ‘Do any of you use Native American culture in your church services back home?’ There was this awkward silence, and they looked around at each other — no joking now; everyone was very serious.

Finally one of them said, ‘No, we don’t.’ And then, all around the room, they started to admit that they didn’t use any Native culture in their services, that the missionaries had told them it was all of the devil, that sort of thing. Then one of the men made a confession. I could tell that it took some courage for him to say this. He said, ‘Actually, I do still go to “the sweats,” and for me it is part of my worship.’ He then explained the ritual of the sweat lodge: ‘I take off my clothes–which is like getting honest before God. Then I got down into the sweat, which is like going down deep into my heart. I am there, naked, with all my brothers, which is a reminder that I am part of a community and I can have no pride or pretense in front of them. Then we pour water on hot rocks over a fire, and the rocks make steam. This is like prayer, and as I pour the water, I confess my sins to God. The more I confess, the hotter it gets, and the hotter it gets the more I sweat. The sweat is like purification. So for me, this is a meaningful part of my worship now that I’m a Christian. I’ve never told anyone this–you might think that this is terrible.’

Then one of the other pastors spoke up and said it really did concern him. It sounded to him like syncretism, like adulterating pure Christianity with pagan elements. He said that we shouldn’t mix worship of the One True God with elements from other religions. The silence became uncomfortable until this same fellow started to speak again, with tears now streaming down his face. ‘I’m sorry,’ he said. ‘That wasn’t me speaking, that was my seminary speaking through me. Please forgive me. I really think what you just said about the sweats was beautiful.’

It took him a couple of minutes to finish speaking, he was so choked up–it was really quite moving to see how emotional this was, not just for the two men who had spoken but for all of them. Then this man continued, ‘I am Hopi, and one of the most meaningful memories in my life is being a boy, before our family became Christians, and being at the pow-wow. We would dance and dance for hours each day. You see, in Hopi culture, dance isn’t just symbolic. Dance is actually a form of prayer. Every time my foot stamps on the ground, I’m saying something to the great spirit that I could never put into words. My whole body is praying as I move around the circle.’

By this time, he was standing and demonstrating the movements. Then he sat down again and put his head in his hands. ‘One of my greatest dream,’ he said, ‘would be someday to lead my congregation in a Hopi dance of worship to my Savior.’ Then he really started to weep, and the other men went around him and put their hands on his shoulder, and one of them prayed for him. What a moment that was. I’ll never forget it.”

Thoughts? Anyone?

>I’ve been reading this book A New Kind of Christian by Brian McLaren. I know I haven’t read it before, yet I came across a passage in the book that I KNOW I have read previously.

It was probably an excerpt on some blog post I read or in another book a long time ago. I know that I’ve read it, because I’ve mulled it over in my head for many years. It’s actually the first thing I think of whenever the topic of syncretism comes up. I’ll post the excerpt in a later post…this one will be too long already.

Syncretism has come to be known as a dirty word. Syncretism is (more of less) the blending of two or more aspects together that would generally be assumed to be opposed to one another. For example, syncretism in the Bible involves such awesome practices as Jews going to ‘worship’ at the Baal altars through Judges, Chronicles & Kings and other books probably. Baal altars were not awesome places, unless you’re into opiate induced worship experiences, forced prostitution and child sacrifices. Hmmm.

So syncretism has become the theological buzz phrase that means “THE WORST FORM OF IDOLATRY YOU COULD HAVE!!1!!” Syncretism is more viewed as ‘sneaky idolatry.’ That is, idolatry that works its way into “true” worship to a point that you don’t even realize that you’re worshiping an idol. ZOMG!! In an effort to curtail idolatry, I believe that we have launched a battle against syncretism that has been taken way too far. Like most battles.

Syncretism is now used in the context of “You can’t do that, it’s syncretism!” Such as hanging a cross and a dreamcatcher from a rear-view mirrow. Or displaying a Christmas tree and a festivus pole during the advent season. (Good news by the way….the adopting of a Christmas tree is also syncretism, but we don’t care about that.)

Festivus, FOR THE REST OF US!

This same fear of syncretism and idolatry is (in my mind) what fuels such vehement backlash against “contemporary” elements, methods and systems being utilized by the church. Sometimes we think that by adding aspects of our culture into worship, we begin to worship these aspects themselves and by that we begin to worship our culture.

Personally, I don’t make that leap. I enjoy contemporary elements in worship. Lights, haze, video, and other theatrical elements help to improve a worship experience…..to me at least. Atmosphere is very important, methods are important, elements are important. And no, i’m not ‘worshiping’ those elements. And no, those elements existing does not mean that we’re truly ‘worshiping’ our culture as opposed to worshiping God.

Sorry, it doesn’t. Nothing to fight here, please move along.

We don’t need to replace our culture with “God’s culture”….whatever the crap that is. I think of this often when confronted with the Christian “brand.” You know, how there is Christian music, Christian movies, Christian television, Christian radio, Christian t-shirts, Christian jeans, Christian clothing of all kinds, Christian coffee mugs, Christian jewelry, Christian clocks, Christian bumper stickers and many Christian stores you can go to purchase these things.

I hope that one day I can drive a Christian car with a Christian stereo in it to play my Christian music on while wearing my Christian apparel…and my sweet Christian sunglasses of course. I’ll also probably put up a Christian bumper sticker (or 30) on the back of it. So that people will really want to know who that Jesus guy is who wants people to dress up and act like a douche. Because THAT is the kind of guy that I want to know, oh yeah!!

Jesus didn’t die for us so we could create a “Christian” brand to slap onto everything. His purpose wasn’t to take our culture 2000 years later and demand that we turn it from the “dangerous secular culture…..boooooooo” into a “Christian” culture. Posting “Christian” up over everything does not remove sin from a culture. You can’t condemn something and cover it up hoping it’ll go away. That’s not productive. Jesus says no thank you.

He came not to drive culture from the people, but the sin from the culture. He came not to condemn our culture, but to redeem it.

>Christians are supposed to be pushovers. We’re not supposed to “resist an evil person.” (Mat 5:39) The way you hear some say it, we’re supposed to be even worse than pushovers, we are to be doormats. That is, instead of being easily knocked over, we’re already laying on the ground just waiting to be walked all over. Right? After all, we’re supposed to “turn the other cheek” and “go the extra mile” aren’t we?

…

“For God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline.” (2 Tim 1:7)

It’s not about being afraid and being timid. But we instead have a spirit of power, love and self-discipline. That we need to train ourselves to display God’s powerful love through our words and actions.

It’s not about lying down and just taking it, allowing others to walk all over you. But it’s not about forcibly resisting either. And it’s certainly not about exacting some form of “equal revenge.” Look at the Mat 5: 38-41 passage again that I was picking out of earlier:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

How is it that we’re not supposed to resist an evil person, and still be able to stand up for ourselves?

I happen to think that it is by going along with what is being asked/demanded (so long as it’s not compromising your morality) but by doing so in a way that makes the person demanding it become more aware of their actions. Just look at the examples Jesus gave us about this.

• If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. Think about how you would be struck on the right cheek. That’s not a natural way to be hit (since most people are right handed….sorry southpaws). In Jesus’ time, Jews were legally allowed to be struck on the right cheek by a backhanded slap from a Roman citizen/official/soldier with no punishment to the person who did it. To be backhanded in this fashion was not only physical violence, but it was an insult to the person’s status who was being assaulted. They were being placed in a subservient state, being made “lesser” to the person who was assaulting them. BUT, to “turn to him the other also” isn’t merely an invitation to continue the beating. If you were to offer up your left cheek as well, for the person to hit you they would socially be considering you an equal instead of “lesser.” They would not be able to backhand you, but either go “open palm” or “knuckles out” all over your other side of your face. See the twisting of the situation here?

• And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. A tunic was basically a long shirt that went down to a person’s knees-ish. It was not EXACTLY a dress…..but pretty darn close in some respects (see Peter Pan over there –>). It was the article of clothing that was worn closest to the skin, and was rarely very loose. If someone were to “win” your tunic in a legal dispute, it would result in great shame (as you’d be pretty much nakers). To cover yourself, you would wrap up in your cloak and sulk away. To say “let him have your cloak as well” is to remove from yourself the ability to cover yourself up. It is to make yourself be very much so nakers. It brings the attention to the accuser, as now you have nothing to cover up with. He is made to realize the extent of his actions and also to realize that his attempt at shaming you has backfired. Because you’re not shamed. You’re not hiding behind your cloak. You’re just basking in the sunlight.

• If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. A Roman soldier carried a lot of gear with him. Shields & spears are heavy, mkay? A soldier was allowed to “volunteer” a Jew to carry his gear for up to a length of 1 mile (ish). This was not debatable, if you were “volunteered” you had to do it…only for 1 mile. As such, if you were carrying the gear you would most likely not be too pleased about it and probably be pretty vocal about your situation. Jesus seems to not think this is a great practice. He doesn’t say to refuse the Roman soldier, he says to double it up! Make the 2nd mile be of your own will. Do what you’re commanded, and then kick it up a notch. Going that 2nd mile would certainly be shocking, and if you did both of the miles while NOT griping and cursing the whole time it would probably be even more shocking. Not only this, but by YOU taking the 2nd mile you are taking the place of another Jew who would have been immediately “volunteered” as soon as your mile is up. It is showing the soldier your care for others to not be put into your place by volunteering yourself. While at the same time convicting them of what they are demanding in the first place.

I see these examples all of ways that Jesus tries to get us to look at the “bigger picture” in a way that we did not view it before. That we are not to “resist the evil person” who makes the demands of us, but fulfill the demand in a way that brings recognition to both the deed and the motivation of the person who asks in the first place.

We are to do this in a self-disciplined fashion. Full of love, being spurned on by the power of God’s spirit.

Maybe it means for us to look at the initial way we want to act to someone who is being a tool to us, and find a way to come about it in an unconventional yet self-disciplined and loving way.

Perhaps when a supervisor barks at you to quit being lazy and take some of the work they have piled up on their desk, you shouldn’t just lower your head, sulk and go do so. But maybe instead do it cheerfully. Let them know that you have run out of things to do at the moment and would be glad to do some of theirs to help them out. Or adding something along the lines of, “If you have more work to do later, please let me know. You don’t need
to wait until I come to you to get some, just ask me for help.”

Or say you have a co-worker who deliberately pretends you don’t exist and seems to want it this way, perhaps you should go out of your way to be friendly to them. Say you’re standing next to the front door when it is time for this person to leave. They walk near you, grab their purse and refuse to go through the front door. Instead they walk 150 feet or more through the back of the building, out one of the side doors, and then back up another 150 feet to the front along the outside to get to their car…which is parked right next to the front door where you have been standing. They have obviously gone to great lengths to actively avoid you and are making no small effort to display their disdain. Perhaps you should stick your head out the front door to wish them a good weekend/evening. Maybe you should do something similar when they storm in every morning and greet everyone in the office except for you. Bring their display of hatred to the forefront by refusing to counter it with your own and refusing to lay down and take it blindly.

I think that we are called to bring attention to these “minor injustices” in our lives. But we are not called to actively resist them. God does not want us to be frustrated and angry in our daily lives due to our inability to cope with those who are mentally, verbally or physically abusive to us.

We must be creatively led by God to see what to do in the situations we are presented with. We are to find disciplined ways to powerfully display God’s love to those who want nothing to do with it. God will do the convicting, it is not our job to change someone’s heart. It is merely our job to be faithful in the situations we find ourselves in.

What kind of creative ways could God show us to deal with these situations? Keep in mind, it is never done to spite the other person or with a mindset of retaliation.

“For God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline.” (2 Tim 1:7)

>Ok, so I obviously stole this video from Tony Morgan’s blog.

I don’t care.

Zac is one of the ministers at NewSpring Church, and this is a video letter he is sending to “his 17 year old self.”

Even though I am obviously not in the same position as Zac (you’ll understand when you watch the video) the message powerfully resonated with me. Just take 5 minutes of your day and watch it, you’ll be glad you did.

>Check it:

John 7:7 (To his brothers)
The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil.

John 17:14 (To God, about the disciples)
I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.

John 15:18 (To the disciples)
“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

If you are a follower of Jesus, the world hates you. For above stated reasons. mkay?

But what is “the world” Jesus is talking about?

We often use these verses to explain why we “as Jesus’ ambassadors” are rejected by non-believers. And we have adopted this mindset in our “culture war” of the post-post-modern era to depict “the world” as our enemy and we we are so opposed to how those “outside the church” behave and live their lives. We equate those who do not believe in God with “the world.”

Did Jesus do the same?

Jesus talks about the world hating us because it hated him. Who was it who hated him in the gospels? Who was it who constantly tried to trap him, trick him, get him arrested, get him killed and eventually crucify him? Who was it that Jesus himself “testified that what it does is evil?”

You know who it was. And it wasn’t a group of “non-believers.” It wasn’t the prostitutes, drunks, tax collectors, gluttons, cheaters, thieves, adulterers…..or even the Hellenist philosophers. If Jesus is saying that the same group that hated him will hate us….we only need to see who it was who hated him…

It was the church.

It was the religious institution in the forms of that day both Pharisee and Sadducee alike. Nothing would draw these two groups together; they disagreed with and were quite opposed to each other. Until Jesus came along.

Here is more from John 15:

¹⁸“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. ¹⁹If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. ²⁰Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. ²¹They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. ²²If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. ²³He who hates me hates my Father as well. ²⁴If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. ²⁵But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’

It seems very clear who he is talking about. The “world” is the group that Jesus came and spoke to and has now made guilty of their sin. But before they would not have been guilty of it. Even seeing the miracles they hated him. To fulfill what was written in THEIR LAW.

It should be very obvious here that Jesus is not talking about some group of “outsiders.” Some group of “the lost” as we like to condescendingly label non-Christians. But instead he is talking about those who people view AS THE CHURCH at this point of history.

Those who he slammed as hypocritical snakes. Those who were more worried about condemning the vile “sinners” that they saw around them instead of loving, caring for and showing mercy to them. Those who knew the way to God and not only refused to go in themselves but stood in the doorway to block others from entering! Those are the world! Not those ignorant of God. Not those trapped in their sins. Not those who need help. No, not those outside the church at all.

The world is us. Those of us in the church who are not of God. Those of us who have been taught and now teach the ways of God that do not synergize with his message.

The world is the Pharisees. Those of us who want to keep our religious superiority and positions of power and authority over the “sinners.” Those who say we want to reach “the lost” but in our words, deeds and attitudes only further condemn and drive them further away from God. Those of us who are SHOWN the error of our ways and the falsehood of our practices/attitudes and refuse to re-examine/repent of our sins. Who instead discredit those who are bringing the accusations and attempt to have them removed/silenced.

These are the ones who truly HATE the followers of Jesus.

Because, as Jesus did, his followers shine light onto the darkness. They show the hypocrisy, judgment, hate, bigotry, elitism for what it truly is. They are in the business of setting free those who have been held captive by the Pharisees and their unrepentantly false understandings.

I don’t believe the Pharisees have ever left us. In fact, I personally think the Pharisee movement is stronger today than ever. I believe the “religious right” movement has done more damage to the message of Jesus and the receptiveness of non-believers than we could ever fully know. I think of all of satan’s plans, it may be one of the cleverest he ever came up with.

A movement so powerful and ubiquitous that it is UN-DISTINGUISHABLE from Christianity to those outside of it and a majority of insiders as well. A movement that has embraced the very verses that talk about it and condemn it, and twisted them to condemn those who we are supposed to be embracing. Turned them into a rallying call for its own hypocrisy and hatred.

I also believe that just as in Jesus’ day there are many in the movement who don’t know it. That is, they do not understand or see the problem of their philosophy/attitudes. They have been deceived and captured by the Pharisees and then have become assimilated into Pharisees themselves. They are not guilty of their sin, because they have not been told.

There is always mercy. There is always grace. There is mercy and grace for them, just as there is mercy and gra
ce for those they are keeping held captive. For those who are kept outside the door. For those who are forcibly driven away from the message of God because they only see messengers who are Pharisees.

I hope this can be fixed. I hope we can mitigate some damage. I hope we can stop standing in the door, and enter it ourselves. And then the others will follow.

>I mentioned in my last post “Gospel of John” that the word ‘gospel’ is not actually found anywhere in the text. The word gospel is found quite often in Matthew, Mark and Luke….along with the writings of Paul. I’ve been thinking about a verse in Matt/Luke for a while now, I’ll just deal with the Matt version for simplicity since they are nearly identical.

Matthew 11: 1-6
¹After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee.

²When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples ³to ask him, “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?”

⁴Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: ⁵The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. ⁶Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.”

What is Jesus saying here? He’s stating the signs that mark himself as the Messiah. Yes, he’s quoting a messianic prophesy from Isaiah, but don’t throw away what is being said because it is a reference. It’s a list of miracles that Jesus has been performing, it’s also an exercise in “one of these things is not like the other.” Putting the miracle of raising the dead alongside of ‘the good news is preached to the poor’ seems like two things that don’t even belong together. I want to focus on that small phrase “the good news is preached to the poor” by breaking into three parts:

1. Who are the poor?
2. What is the good news?
3. What is preaching?

Who are the poor?

I’ve heard often when this verse is expounded upon that the “poor” here could be understood as the “poor in spirit.” I vehemently disagree. Jesus talks about the “poor in spirit” in other places specifically in Matthew and mentions them AS SUCH when he’s talking about them (beatitudes anybody??) so I don’t feel it is responsible to assume he’s speaking of them when they are not mentioned as such. So these people aren’t just “the poor in spirit” they are the poor. Destitute, beggars, the bottom of the rung of society living in dust and shame. Think of the images you’ve seen before on TV of “the poor.” I suppose I could post them, but if you’re at all like me, you can bring these pictures up immediately mentally, they’re burned there.

We have a hard time from our positions of wealth to really grasp what it is to be poor. That’s natural. How can we truly understand something we haven’t experienced? Poverty is (obviously) a debilitating condition. All physical and emotional energy is tied up in a quest for survival so that every hour of every day is an exhausting existence. Because of this exhausting existence, the poor not only remain poor, but become hopeless.

To be poor is to be powerless…powerless to change the causes of one’s poverty, powerless to escape the desolation, fear, and anguish that are some of poverty’s bitter fruits. There is no way out, this is the way that life is to them. So yes, they really also do become ‘poor in spirit’ but it is because of their extreme physical poverty that they are driven to it.

What is the good news?

The word here in greek is ‘euangelion,’ meaning good news or gospel. Ok….so what’s that? Welcome to the tricky part. Gospel really gets a firm definition on it from Pauline theology laid out nicely for us in 1 Corinthians 15:

¹Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. ²By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

³For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ⁵and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. ⁶After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, ⁸and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

So, that’s nicely laid out for us. What is the gospel? That in accordance with the Scriptures; Christ died for our sins, he was buried, he was raised, people saw him. Ok….but what if these things hadn’t happened yet? You know…since Jesus is alive and preaching the gospel before all those things occur. Is he preaching that he’s going to die, be buried, raised and witnessed? Yes, sometimes, and speaking in ways that people who here him do not understand. So what benefit is that to the poor? I don’t think that Jesus would be preaching this news to the poor that they would not be able to understand.

What I think, is that our understanding of gospel by looking ONLY at these verses is incomplete.

The gospel, as Paul outlines it, focuses specifically on the ‘what.’ I think it is important to focus on the ‘why.’ Why was Jesus killed, buried, raised & witnessed? What’s the reason for it?

It’s for us. All of us. Because Jesus was reconciling all of us to himself. Because we’re loved, because we’re important, because God says so. Jesus’ sacrifice was for everyone, we all are respected enough and deemed important enough by God to be bought. This good news that Jesus is preaching to the poor isn’t necessarily that 4-step Pauline outline of the gospel, but it is that the people (the poor) are loved. That they are important. That they can have hope. It is that Jesus is specifically there to help THEM, both in a spiritual and physical sense. If it was only one or the other you wouldn’t see him both forgiving sins and doing physical miracles. Jesus’ salvation is holistic, for all parts of us, for the next life AND this one.

What is preaching?

Is preaching just shouting or speaking information into the air and those who can hear it will hear it and apply it? Is preaching just presenting information and then “it’s up to them” the masses, the poor, the whoever to do with the information what they will?

No.

Preaching is not so passive. Preaching is a very involved act. Preaching means to communicate a message in ways that your audience can understand it. Jesus isn’t just spouting off information into the air and letting it fall where it will. God is far more deliberate than that.

Here in Matthew 11:5 the word preached is actually a variant of ‘euangelion’ as well. It is one used only a few times in the New Testament and carries with it a trans-formative connotation. That the people aren’t being “preached” to so much as they are being “evangelized.” They are being changed and tran
sformed by this “good news” that is being preached. This preaching is very specific, in that ONLY good news is what can be preached when this particular verb is used. It is out of context to place it with any other noun that is “preached.” Almost as if the text itself is saying “the gospel is preached in the way that only the gospel can be preached.” Or maybe even, “the poor are gospelized by the gospel.”

This preaching is specific, this preaching is active. The poor are evangelized, they are “gospelized” in such a way that they are changed by what they are hearing. They are identifying with the message that was incompatible to their previous way of thought. That of hopelessness. That of desperation. This previous thinking is eliminated and replaced by hope, love, and empowerment.

Also, good luck with that without meeting some immediate needs of the poor. What good is a God who can save your soul and not provide you with water? What power does Jesus have if he can ONLY forgive sins and not feed a crowd of the hungry?

So why isn’t this in John?

Well, I think it is. Just not in one particular line. Each gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) is an entire book taking the time to say that one line in Matthew 11:5. To expand on it, to really get into how Jesus does it, why he did it, and how we respond to it.

John’s gospel is filled with examples of Jesus forgiving the sins of hopeless and desperate people. Of helping those in need, of healing the sick, of feeding the hungry, of releasing people from the ways they have been trapped by those in power above them. Especially those who have been condemned by the laws of ‘the religious.’

John’s gospel doesn’t use the word ‘euangelion’ specifically in the text, but it gives a better understanding than just that word. Unfortunately for us I feel it has become so deadened by overuse that the verse has lost its power and become cliche for many. I mean specifically John 3:16-17:

¹⁶“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

That is the gospel. That is the ‘euangelion.’ To understand and apply this is to be gospelized. John’s entire gospel pivots on and points to those two small verses. As it should.

>So, I haven’t been writing lately. Noticed? Well, no matter. My parents were in town for two weeks, so I took time off work. So I decided to not really worry about this either. But today is my first day back, so all is now forgiven for my absence!! Also, so.

The Gospel of John has been coming up a lot lately, we’re doing a small study on it in our community group, it has come up specifically in several conversations over the past few days. So I have it on the brain. I’m thinking the next few days, I’ll make posts upon a few issues in that book. Unless something else comes up, and i’ll write about that instead.

Lots of people seem to really like John. Many consider it their favorite gospel…and lots of times when I ask “why?” people say something along the lines of “because it’s different.” Granted, there are often more specific reasons why, but they usually center along the differences.

I thought I’d put up a quick list of a few things that are missing from the Gospel of John when compared to the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Think of this as a neat list of fun facts.

Things that are “Missing” in John

• Jesus’ baptism. John the baptizer gives the testimony of the dove descending from heaven and remaining on Jesus….but the text says nothing of any sort of a baptism of Jesus occurring.

• The temptation of Jesus by Satan. Stands to reason since there’s no baptism in John, and this happened right after in the storyline in the Synoptics. Also, Satan is only mentioned 1 time in John, that being John 13:27 “As soon as Judas took the break, Satan entered into him.”

• Any mention of Hell. Which would make this next one seem pretty logical…

• Exorcisms. Jesus does a lot of exorcisms in the synoptics. A lot. You’d think there were demons hanging out everywhere Jesus went, just looking for trouble. Zero in the Gospel of John.

• The Kingdom of God. This phrase is littered throughout the synoptics along with “The Kingdom of Heaven. It is an incredibly important concept in the synoptics. It is mentioned only 2x in John, in the same discourse John 3: 1-21.
  

• Parables. There may some disagreement about this on semantics and definitions of parables, but technically there are NO parables in the Gospel of John. I find this especially interesting as parables are Jesus’ primary teaching method in the other gospels. John does contain some allegories and metaphors, such as John 15: 1-17.

• The Transfiguration. You know, that whole bit where Jesus takes 3 disciples to the top of a hill and he becomes real white and shiny while Moses and Elijah show up and chat for a bit. Yeah. Not in John. Also funny, is that the synoptics list John as one of the disciples that went up onto the mountain. And mention of this event is in one of John’s letters, but not the Gospel of John. Some people would use this to argue against John being the actual author of the Gospel of John….but hey, what do they know?

• The Lord’s Prayer. The “Our Father.” The prayer that many non-Christians could probably recite due to how often they’ve heard it and how often it is referenced in culture. This is also absent in Mark….so John isn’t really fully unique in this regard. But still worth mentioning.

• Repent. Or Repentance, or any variant thereof. Similarly you’ll only find “forgive” appearing once as well, in John 20:23 “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” Ok, so technically four times, pshaw.

• The Gospel. The greek transliteration ‘euangelion’ meaning “the good message.” Good news, gospel, etc, all of these are missing from John. I find this the most interesting of items on this list. I’ll definitely be expanding on this later.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, there are anthologies written about the differences of the gospels and specifically the variances John brings to the table. But it’s a good start. And of course this list doesn’t touch on things that ONLY occur in John and not the synoptics…that would be an entirely different list.

It is generally accepted that as the Gospels were written they were quickly dispersed throughout the Church and became the approved material of the early organized Church. But this surely didn’t happen instantly. It happened over a few decades of time. I wonder what kind of effect that had on some branches of early Christians….well, I guess I don’t really wonder, most of the New Testament writings other than the Gospels deal with the problems/fighting/divisions of the early Church….so we know the effect it had.

Rather, I find it interesting to think of what kind of picture of Jesus was painted in the hearts and minds of those who only had access to one gospel as opposed to four like we do now. Especially if that gospel was John.

It also makes me think of how we waste the wealth of information the Bible presents us. We cut it apart. We take parts of Jesus we like and emphasize them, and we de-emphasize or even ignore the parts we don’t want to hear or don’t understand. We create our own Gospel and our own Bible based upon the information we want to take from it. We find verses and sections to emphasize our point that we already have in our head. Maybe having such a large cache of information to pull from allows this. Whereas early churches who only had access to one gospel narrative instead of 4 were unable to do so to the same extent….but still found ways.

>I’ve been watching the movie Magnolia today. It’s Tuesday. Otherwise known as movie day. Some will disagree with me, but Magnolia is the most powerful, well acted, masterfully made, and spiritually moving film ever created.

Everyone should see this movie. However, it’s fairly unpopular. It runs slightly over 3 hours long. For me it is an emotionally draining film to watch. It is also incredibly vulgar and in many areas sexually explicit. IMDB claims it drops 190 F-bombs….and that may be a conservative estimate. There is also a lot of drug abuse.

It’s a hard movie to watch.

The depth of this film is just incredible. The pain of the characters is transmitted so masterfully onto the viewer. Every single tiny thing in this movie is placed deliberately. There is nothing that a character says at any time that can be ‘thrown away.’ If you are good at observing things and REALLY watching a movie, you will appreciate the richness of the film.

The movie (again) is full of pain. It’s haunting. The characters are full of pain, hopelessness, regret, conflict, fear and confusion. But the movie is a story of hope and ultimately freedom. It’s a film of redemption. And for every character to get to that point of redemption they must deal with their troubles and address everything that they are hiding. When they won’t do this, when they won’t forgive or find forgiveness, when they won’t free themselves from what is keeping them captive, God intervenes to release them. To redeem them. And to forgive them.

It’s not pretty. It never is. But it’s necessary. There’s nothing pretty about God’s redemption of the Israelites in the Old Testament. And to say that God’s redemption of us in the New Testament is “not pretty” would be an understatement. Redemption is an ugly, painful, terrible process. We need to learn that.

As the book says, “We may be through with the past, but the past ain’t through with us.”

>I am sunburnt. It sucks. It is not an incredibly bad sunburn, growing up in Florida I have had plenty of those. But this one is just mildly unpleasant. HOWEVER, it has made me increasingly tired. You know, on account of my body trying to heal all those damaged skin cells and fight off possible infection.

I got a sunburn from swimming in the pool in the middle of the day with Brooke. We were only in the pool for about 35 minutes or so, but that doesn’t matter. It was more than enough to burn the bejesus out of my shoulders and back. However, Brooke was covered in sunscreen, because I wanted to make sure she didn’t get a sunburn. Do you taste the irony? Is it delicious?

Surprisingly, this actually made me think of a part of Matthew. Matthew 7: 3-5 to be specific. “³ Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? ⁴How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? ⁵You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

Usually when I hear this verse preached, or read about it, the verse is being used as an example against judging others. Which is kinda fair, as verses 1-2 read ^“1Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ²For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

However, just read Matthew 7 at some point and see how Jesus is rapid firing out pithy sayings 2-3 verses long for about the whole chapter. Some of them can be tied together at least a little bit, but for the most part it’s pretty disconnected. Personally, I don’t think ver 3-5 tie to 1-2 as much as some would assume they do. Why? Glad you asked!

Look at the two characters in the illustration of Mat 7:3-5. One with a speck, one with a plank (let’s call them S and P respectively for simplicity). Jesus is focusing on P obviously, but what is the motivation of P for what he is saying? If you were to assume that this is a continuation of ver 1-2 you’d say that it would be he is judging S, right? It makes sense, that’s what we hear and read. But just look at verse 4 for a sec, “⁴How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?” If P were actually just worrying about judging S why would he want to remove the speck from S’s eye? Wouldn’t that remove what it is that P is ‘judging’ him for in the first place? That doesn’t make sense.

But P says “Let me take the speck out of your eye.” Why does he say it? Why would he want to take the speck out of S’s eye? It seems fair to say that it’s because P is trying to help S. He’s not doing it out of some malicious intent, or to give himself a position of superiority over his brother, S. He sees a problem that S has, he thinks he has the solution to the problem and he is trying to help his brother S so that S would no longer have to deal with this problem any longer. What is so wrong with that? He’s certainly not judging S falsely as he really does have a speck in his eye. And he’s trying to be helpful by taking care of someone’s problem. So why does Jesus take such issue with this?

I think that some of it can be because we need to take care of ourselves first. That sounds selfish, and so much of the New Testament is filled with putting the needs of others before the needs of yourself. But this isn’t quite the same thing. This isn’t worrying about your own needs just for the sake of it and being selfish, this is about taking care of your own problems and your own shortcomings so that you can THEN go and take care of the needs of others. So that you can see clearly what you are doing, and that you can do the MOST good for other people once you have no longer have your own issues holding you back. Just like Jesus says in verse 5 “⁵You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” He doesn’t say to NOT remove the speck from your brother’s eye, that is not the issue. You should certainly try to help to remove the problems of your brother. But, you can not do this until you have taken care of your own mess first…and once you have, by all means go and help your brother.

So why not do it in the opposite order? Why not take care of your brother’s problems first, and then care of your own? Why not even do them simultaneously? Surely we can’t be expected to be perfect before we can even think about helping others. Well no, of course not. But we need to take care of the problems that we know of personally, and at least address them before we try to take care of the problems that others have. We just can’t be as effective if we’re still dealing with our own mess while trying to help others take care of theirs. We need to get to a point where we can be effective first.

You ever ride in an airplane? You know the safety spiel at the start? The part where it talks about oxygen masks coming out of the ceiling. It specifically says that if you have a small child with you or someone who would need help putting their mask on to put YOUR mask on first and THEN help them with theirs. As a parent, this seems counter-intuitive at first glance. I want the safety of my child to be taken of first and foremost. I would easily sacrifice my own safety and everything else to guarantee Brooke’s. But putting her oxygen mask doesn’t guarantee her safety. An
d if somewhere were to happen where I would become incapacitated between the time of putting the mask on her first and putting my mask on second, she would certainly still be in big trouble.

The oxygen mask isn’t the end to the problem…we still need to survive. The oxygen mask is just the first step. It’s not solving all the problems and issues with the situation. To say that we shouldn’t help our brother until ALL of our problems are dealt with would be like saying that I should put my mask on and then wait until the plane has landed safely and we’re back on solid ground away from danger before worrying about helping Brooke with her mask. There is a sense of urgency here that using that logic does not address. She needs her oxygen mask, NOW. But I need mine on first, so that I can be capable of helping with OTHER problems that can arise from this situation too. Your brother does very much need that spec removed from his eye, but you need the plank removed first because the spec is by no means the end of the problems that S & P are facing together.

Putting Brooke’s oxygen mask on first does not guarantee her safety, just as pulling the spec out of S’s eye first does not guarantee his healthy spiritual growth and well being. That is the end result that P wants. He wants his brother to not be hindered. He wants to help. And he should, he just needs to do it the right way so that he’s not knocked out of the show after the first small part of removing the spec. Who knows what kinds of problems are going to come knocking next?

Had I just put sunscreen on myself first, I wouldn’t have slathered Brooke in it and then rushed out the door forgetting to take care of myself as well. And I wouldn’t have this freaking sunburn.