Category Archives: Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Baptism, Resurrection Power and the Power of Visual Imagery

Leave a comment

In our last post we looked at the communal meaning behind the Christian belief in the Resurrection of the Body. In this post, I want to look at how our individualistic tendencies can often skew our understanding about the basic building blocks of what the Christian faith is about. In my Easter Sunday message prep I came across the song “Resurrection Power” by popular Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) artist Chris Tomlin. I’d like to use this song as an example of this tendency.

As far as CCM songs go, this song is pretty much par for the course. The lyrics are loosely based on Scripture, in this case Ephesians 1:19-20, where Paul prays that the Ephesians will know God’s “incomparably great power,” which is the same power that “raised Christ from the dead.” Hence, resurrection power. As with most Tomlin songs, the tune is simple, uplifting, and infectious. What is problematic is not so much the song itself, but the visual depiction of baptism in relationship to the theme of resurrection.

In order for the rest of this post to make sense, you’ll need to watch the video:

First off, I think it is right and appropriate to tie baptism with resurrection. Baptism, at its core, is a sacrament of identification. We, in baptism, identify ourselves with Christ’s identification with us, so that what is true of him is now true of us. Just as Christ died and was raised, so we have died and are raised with him in baptism. Death is symbolized by our immersion underwater — a death by drowning. In dying we are then brought up out of the water indicating the new life we receive in Christ. We see this play out in the video.

So far so good.

But notice how in the video, it is a solitary individual, unsure of where he is going, unaccompanied, driving by his lonesome out into a remote field all by himself. Did I mention he is alone? Here, I think, is where the visual story telling goes awry in depicting what baptism is about (and by association, what resurrection is about). It seems to want to say that baptism is something we can do for ourselves. I have to admit, the way the scenes are cut and edited to fit the lyrics, I feel a certain kind of triumphant elation when the man plunges himself into the water just as the song builds in its climactic turn (right around 3:12). But that’s just it. Baptism is not a triumphant achievement. It is a gift we receive in humility. We don’t plunge ourselves into the water. We are baptized. We get baptized. Baptism is something someone else does for us, not something we can do for ourselves.

What is more, baptism teaches us that we are accepted into a new community. We are baptized into a people — the body of Christ. That is why baptism is never done in isolation. It is always before a watching community. A community of those who will support and sustain us in our new life as members of Christ’s body, precisely because they are the ones who are receiving and ushering us into that body.

Now, couple all this with the oft-repeated chorus, “Now, I have resurrection power.” What we are left with is the subtle suggestion that the power of resurrection is something we possess as individuals for our empowerment as individuals. All of this is a glaring example of the unrelenting focus on the individual in so much of what is labeled Christian in our culture. The individual is not a bad thing to care about, but what often happens is that we, as the proverbial saying goes, miss the forest for the trees. We see this at the end of the video where we find that maybe there is some semblance of a community forming. But no. It turns out they are just other individuals going to out to the same field to baptize themselves. It seemed to me like a guy finding a hidden Starbucks that paved the way for others to flock to it and get their morning fix.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the song itself. I actually quite like it. It is just to say that the visual story telling draws our focus inward whereas Scripture I think wants to draw us outward, outside of ourselves (which I think is how the belief in resurrection is best understood). If we read the passage in which the title of the song is based in context (Ephesians 1:19-20), we would see that the power Paul is talking about is a power that is able to unite what has for so long been separated by enmity and strife. The nasty division between Jew and Gentile. But now, as Paul tells the mixed community of Christ’s body, by the power that brought Christ up from the dead:

19…you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Eph. 2:19-22

Now, imagine if the video for this song was set to images of reconciliation in which those who have been estranged to the Church are suddenly welcomed into the body. This is the newness that the resurrection makes possible. We have been raised with Christ into a kingdom in which the marginalized and outcast are now at home among God’s people. None are excluded. So, what if at the climactic moment of the song we do not have a man baptizing himself, but the welcoming embrace of those who were once “far-off” now brought near through the saving work of Christ.

Now that would be some resurrection power.

Uncategorized

The Resurrection of the Body

Leave a comment

It’s been a while, but in our last look on the resurrection, we ended with this image of our lives being held in the memory of God as we await, what the Apostle’s Creed calls, the Resurrection of the Body. This is the orthodox way of expressing the hope for which we patiently wait. It is not the hope of the soul going to heaven when we die, but the hope of the “Resurrection of the Body.” The way it is phrased is wonderfully ambiguous. There are a number of ways to interpret what “the body” means, and when taken together they give us a fuller meaning of what salvation entails.

First, “the body” can mean Christ’s literal, physical body. The Resurrection of the Body is about the resurrection of his body. His body is the body, raised from the dead in advance of all others. As Paul writes, “Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20). Christ’s risen body is like that first flower that blooms while the snow is still melting, giving us a glimpse of what is in store when spring comes and winter fully passes away.

Second, “the body” can refer to a figurative body. Think of Paul’s famous analogy of Christ’s body — the body of which we have been made members. It is a singular body made up of many parts. The body that is resurrected, in this case, is a people This, I think, is the corrective we need in thinking about salvation in the modern West. That is, we need to see salvation as a communal reality before it is individual. Or better, it is only individual because it is communal. This is something that is entirely glossed over in the “will you go to heaven?” way of thinking about salvation — a predominantly individualistic way of casting salvation.

Lastly, ”the body” can be taken to mean bodies in general. Here, the Resurrection of the Body is about the resurrection of all bodies, not least of which is our own. This is perhaps the most intuitive interpretation. I look forward to the day when my body will be raised. Of course this is true, but I think it best to understand resurrection in the order we have just laid out. The Resurrection of the Body is first about Christ, then about us, then about me.

Rather than seeing the story of Scripture told in five acts, we tend to see it, in our highly individualistic culture, as only three:

  1. Act ONE: Creation/Fall
  2. Act THREE: Jesus
  3. Act FIVE: The End

What is missing? Acts TWO and FOUR, which are Israel and the Church. The way we understand salvation deeply affects the significance we place on these two acts. When the individual is at the center of God’s plan for salvation, Israel becomes an oversight and the Church an after thought.

So it matters how we see the End.

Could we recast the End as our End and not simply my End? Or what if we saw our individual ends as inextricably bound up with the communal End described in Scripture? Then maybe we could better appreciate how integral Israel and Church are. For it is within the living memory of these two communities that the story of Scripture has been and continues to be kept alive. And through the ongoing telling and retelling of this millennia old story, we are given the resources to know that we are not just anybody, but made into somebody by virtue of our inclusion in the body, Christ’s body. It is in, through and for this body that we find our end and it is with this body that we will be raised at the end on the last day.

Uncategorized

Women Within The Christian Context Part 1: Mary Magdalene is Arya Stark

Leave a comment

Preface

A few introductory remarks before I dive into the topic at hand. First, this subject matter is not an area of primary research for me and many of you will probably know the literature much better than I do, but there are one or two things I may be able to add to the subject. Even then, it will be a fraction of what has been said on this subject. Secondly, I don’t know if we need another Christian man to tell us how we ought to think about women within the Christian context, however, this has been something I have thought about for years and always wanted to do a post/talk on this topic. desire to write a post vs. uncertainty in navigating gender role/climate? Lastly, I get a little nervous about the word “egalitarianism”. I recognize and understand what is being said of course. I think part of my anxiousness is that our culture is so polarized; that a decision on one point commits us into a specific group. The other part of it is that egalitarianism is a hope without the knowledge of, as NT Wright calls, “our freedom in Christ”. What NT Wright means by “our freedom in Christ” is, the hope that is found on the cross points to a completely separate “philosophy” that is outside of (or not constrained by) egalitarianism. Egalitarianism states that all humans should either get the same or be treated as the same in respects to political, economical, social, and civil rights status. As Christian, maybe we start our understanding of equality, not by “should be the same”, but by “already the same”. “Already the same” as in there is no gender (or race). There is only, individuals, human beings, creatures, God’s people, community, etc. In other words, as the Apostle Paul writes:

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 NIV)

Galatians 3:28

Th book of Galatians is about The Law vs grace. Who is considered inheritors and part of God’s family and who is not. The point Paul is making in the book of Galatians is that God has one family and this family consists of all those who believe in Jesus; this is the family God promised to Abraham and The Law can’t stand in the way of this unity which is now revealed through Jesus. However, the book of Galatians (and more importantly this particular verse) is not at all about how we could relate to one another within this family; it is about the fact that the ground is even at the foot of the cross.

Interestingly, as to the English Standard Version, Paul is a lot clearer in what he is conveying:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 ESV)

The ESV is considered essentially a “literal” translation that tries to capture the precise wording of the original text. As such, it emphasizes on “word-for-word” correspondence. It’s interesting that Paul is stating ‘no male and female’ rather than using another neither/nor statement. “Neither…nor” is a sentence structure that is used to connect the same kind of word or phrase in the sentence and it make it a negative statement about two things. For example:

“Neither the Houston Rockets nor the Portland Trail Blazers will be able to beat the Golden State Warriors”.

To put it in another way, both teams, unfortunately, will not win against the Golden State Warriors. Not this team and not the other. The verse from the NIV is essentially stating the same thing as the ESV verse, but what’s fascinating, at least for me, is Paul in the ESV is emphatically saying “no” instead of using the same “neither…nor” pattern.

Gospels

We can’t ignore the fact that Jesus chose twelve male apostles. There were all kinds of reasons for this within the practical and cultural world in which they worked and lived in. But every time this point is made, we need to remember that the disciples all forsake Jesus and ran away; and it was the women who came first to the tomb, who were the first to see the risen Jesus.

The Greek word for “apostle” is “one who is sent off”. It refers to an emissary or anyone sent on a mission. As a result, an apostle becomes an ambassador of the one who sent him/her. A representative or promoter of a particular news. We frequently think of the twelve disciples and Paul when we think of the word “apostle”. Then we remember that there are other people that hold the title ‘Apostle’. Andronicus, Junia (a woman), James, Barnabas, Apollos, Timothy, Silvanus, and Epaphroditus. But what makes these particular people, the non-original twelve, “apostles”? More importantly, what qualifies someone, like Mary Magdalene, to be an apostle?

Essentially, it boils down to three criterias:

  • To have seen Jesus after the resurrection
  • Received the the good news (i.e. Jesus has risen), not through any other means, but through Christ himself
  • Is tasked to go and tell others the good news that Jesus is risen

This is incredibly significant because this makes Mary Magdalene, not only ‘The First Apostle’, but it also makes her the ‘Apostle to the Apostles’. If an apostle is a witness to the resurrected Christ and is commissioned to tell that Jesus has risen, then there were women, like Mary, who deserved the title of apostle before the men did.

The promotion of women is not a totally new thing with the resurrection. We see this during Jesus’ public ministry, the story of Mary and Martha in Luke 10. Most of us commonly think of this story in terms of Martha is the active one and Mary is the passive or contemplative one when it comes to having guests in our home; and that Jesus is simply affirming the priority of devotion to him. That devotion is part of the importance of the story, but the far more obvious fact for any first-century reader would be that Mary should be in the back room like every other women. Instead she was sitting where men at the time typically sit. This, I am pretty sure, is what really bothered Martha. Of course Martha was upset about being left to do all the work, but the real problem behind it was that Mary had cut clean across one of the most basic social norms. (One example of this is, if you were to invite me to stay in your house and, when it came to bedtime, I set up my bed in your bedroom. We have our own clear, but unspoken rules about our spaces and so did they). Mary ‘sitting at his feet’ is a phrase that is commonly understood today as the adoring student gazing up in admiration and love at the wonderful teacher. However, to sit at the teacher’s feet is a way of saying you are being a student, picking up the teacher’s wisdom and learning. You wouldn’t do this just for the sake of informing your own mind, but in order to be a teacher yourself.

One of Game of Thrones main female character, Arya Stark, is a great example of how a character subverts cultural norms. For those of you who haven’t read the book or watched the show, the weight of oppression on women in the world of Game of Thrones is demonstrated most clearly in Arya as she repeatedly criticizes the restrictions placed upon her by her gender. She lacks any interest in needlework, but is punished for her refusal to engage in the skill or any other activities for her gender. What makes Arya Stark a compelling character is that she echoes much of Mary Magdalene in the Gospels. That is to say, Arya refused to acknowledge gender roles of her society and actively took interests in male-only activities. Much like Mary did.

I’ll have Part 2 out next week

Uncategorized

Tony Stark, Peter, and the Story Arc of Christian Discipleship

1 Comment

WARNING: If you have not yet seen Avengers: Endgame SPOILERS AHEAD!

———————————————————————————————

In our gospel passage this past Sunday we looked at a description that Jesus gives about the kind of death that Peter would die. Jesus tells him, “Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go” (John 21:18).

The words here are a bit cryptic, which makes interpreting what exactly Jesus is getting at hard to decipher. Having just seen Avengers: Endgame, I thought it might be fun (and illuminating) to explore what Jesus predicts about Peter’s future through the story arc of Tony Stark (aka Ironman).

When we first meet Mr. Stark (ten years ago in the first Iron Man movie), he is a genius engineer, womanizing playboy, and all around smart-ass — the epitome of a self-absorbed and self-determined individual. In other words, he did what he wanted and went where he wanted. Minutes into the film he is severely wounded in an attack by a terrorist group and held captive in a remote cave. In exchange for his freedom, Stark is forced to build a Jericho missile, a weapon of mass destruction that he himself designed for the U.S. military.

While in this cave, we find that a doctor named Yinsen has also been abducted to tend to Stark’s injuries as well as serve as his personal missile building assistant. Both realize that there is no way the terrorists are going to let them go and so they hatch an escape plan. Part of this plan involves building what turns out to be the first Iron Man suit. When they finally make their break things go awry and Yinsen ends up sacrificing his life in order to give Stark the time he needs to get away. It is this act of self-sacrifice on the part of a complete stranger that sets Tony Stark on a hero’s journey that will take more than a decade to complete.

To be sure, there is a charming narcissism that is part of what makes Tony Stark Tony Stark. Indeed his most quintessential (and iconic) line comes at the end of the first movie where he announces to the world, “I am Ironman.” This comes on the heels of being told that it is best to keep his true identity under wraps. But as we noted, he does what he wants and goes where he wants. Simply staying put as Tony Stark is just not as gratifying and glamorous as ascending to superhero stardom.

If you have seen the movie you will know that this self declaration, “I am Ironman,” becomes the climactic and crowning line of Avengers: Endgame. But this time it is spoken by a man who has not remained the same Tony Stark we knew once upon a time. He is no longer possessed by a narrow obsession with his own self-interest. Or rather, it might be better said that his self-interest has since been (en)lightened, no longer weighed down by the heavy tyranny of caring always and only for himself.

We see this set up in the early part of Endgame where we find that in the 5 years since the demigod Thanos snapped half of all life out of existence, Tony Stark has made a comfortable life for himself. Having married longtime love Pepper Potts, they now live a quiet life together in a peaceful lakeside mansion with their 5-year old daughter Morgan. In a way, this is a tremendous step forward for Tony Stark. That he is able to settle down with Pepper and become a father shows a certain kind of growth and maturity from him. But more will be asked of him when Captain America and company show up with a dangerous plan to try and reverse the Snap.

Will Tony safeguard his current idyllic life or will he risk it for what is yet tenuous and uncertain? Will he take the path of least resistance or will he embark on a rescue mission fraught with peril and possibly death? Or as Jesus puts it, will he choose to save his life or lose it?

This brings us to the decisive moment that all 22 movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) have been driving towards. History is about to repeat itself, but with a vengeance. This time Thanos is hellbent on wiping every living creature out of existence, not just half. He has once again taken hold of what he needs to do it and just as he is about the snap his fingers he proclaims, “I am inevitable.”

And then comes the snap…

…but nothing happens.

What went wrong (or maybe what went right)?

Somehow Tony Stark has gained the upper hand (pun intended) and it is he who now possesses what is needed to snap Thanos out of existence. (Oh snap!) But he knows that the power released in doing so would more than likely cost him his life. With the fate of all the cosmos hanging in the balance, Tony Stark looks up at Thanos, says, “I am Ironman,” and with a snap of his fingers completes a story arc ten years in the making, taking him from egotistical megalomaniac to self-giving hero.

What Tony Stark goes through can offer us a way to interpret what Jesus says is in store for Peter. Peter, like Tony, is cocky and brash. But also like Tony, his story arc will take him from cocky and brash to humble and self-sacrificial. Who is it that will lead Peter by the hand and take him where he does not want to go? According to church history, Peter is crucified upside down. So many believe that the “someone else” who will lead him may be a soldier leading him to his crucifixion. This is certainly a legitimate interpretation. But what if we thought about it in another way? What if we looked at it in a more figurative way — that what leads Peter is something akin to conviction.

When we speak of being convicted, it is not quite the same as saying, “this is something I want to do.” To be convicted, it seems to me, is not the same as wanting to do something. But neither is it the same as doing something we don’t want to do. Conviction is a kind of unwanted wanting. It is unwanted in that it is something that often works in the opposite direction of our regular inclinations, but is nevertheless a wanting in that it compels us to act in line with a greater desire that issues from beyond us. This is the realm of what Scripture calls the will of God.

When Scripture talks about doing God’s will, it is not language that speaks on the same register as doing that which we want or that which makes us happy. But neither is it calling us to be miserable as if God only makes us do things we don’t want to do. It is speaking on the level of conviction. The journey that Tony Stark goes on moves him from a life driven by selfish desires towards a life drawn forward by conviction. The last thing Tony wants to do is leave the life he has made with Pepper and Morgan and yet he finds himself strangely compelled to open himself up to the very thing that will surely disrupt and possibly put an end to that life.

Where did such a conviction come from? One answer is that it came from Yinsen giving his life to set Tony free. Another finds its beginning in the invitation made to him to become a part of a new community (the Avengers Initiative). It is this community that offered him a way to see his life as part of a larger whole. In a way that is what God’s will consists of. In the Christian faith, this larger whole is defined by a people. Or more accurately, a people gathered around a story about a God who died to set us free. God’s will is what can be discerned within the confines of a community learning to live into this grand story given to us in Scripture. 

So back to what Jesus says to Peter. Could it be that the “someone else” Jesus references is none other than God? That for Peter and for all of us who have been made a part of Christ’s body, the Church, Christian discipleship is about the willingness to follow a God whose will it is to lead us into places where we don’t want to go; and yet find in being led to such places we are drawn out of our tendency toward self-absorption by a conviction shaped by Scripture, discerned in community. And like the story arc we have been following on screen with Tony Stark throughout the MCU, may we take heart that such convictions are not gained over night nor are they formed in a straight line. It is a bumpy ride filled with a mixture of failure and triumph lasting a lifetime. Of course, this is nowhere more evident than in the life of Peter. We know about his foibles. We read about his denials. But in the end, we also know that he becomes one who is able to die a good and honorable death. As the Gospel of John puts it, “a death that would glorify God” (John 21: 19). May our lives follow a similar story arc so that when the hour of our death comes may the same be true of us.

Uncategorized

O Love That Will Not Let Me Go

Leave a comment

I wanted to do a short series where we reflect on the stories and lyrics behind certain hymns. In order to get the most out of this series, it is recommended that you 1) read the lyrics while listening to the song, 2) read the Story, Thoughts, and Reflection parts of the post, and then 3) read and listen the song once more.

O Love that will not let me go,

I rest my weary soul in thee;

I give thee back the life I owe,

That in thine ocean depths its flow

May richer, fuller be.


O Light that followest all my way,

I yield my flickering torch to thee;

My heart restores its borrowed ray,

That in thy sunshine’s blaze its day

May brighter, fairer be.


O Joy that seekest me through pain,

I cannot close my heart to thee;

I trace the rainbow through the rain,

And feel the promise is not vain,

That morn shall tearless be.


O Cross that liftest up my head,

I dare not ask to fly from thee;

I lay in dust life’s glory dead,

And from the ground there blossoms red

Life that shall endless be.

Story

George Matheson (1842-1906) suffered poor eyesight from birth. At age 15, Matheson learned that he was going blind. He had an incurable condition that would eventually result in total blindness and there was nothing that could be done to help him. However, Matheson was not one to be easily discouraged, he enrolled in the University of Glasgow and graduated at age 19. Whilst at University, he had met and fallen in love with a girl who was a fellow student and they were planning to get married.

He broke the news of his impending blindness to her. To his astonishment and deep sadness her blunt answer came to him like a dagger to his heart, “I do not want to be the wife of a blind man” she said – and with that they parted.

Years later the memory of that repudiation came flooding back on the evening of Matheson’s sister’s marriage. His whole family had went to the wedding and had left him alone. And he writes during his immense anguish. In the darkness of that moment George Matheson wrote this hymn. He remarked afterward that it took him five minutes and that it was the only hymn he ever wrote that required no editing.

Each of the four stanzas begins with a key word—Love, Light, Joy and Cross—that are not only attributes to our relationship with Christ, but also names we give to Christ.

The Cross is the theme of the concluding stanza. Through Christ’s suffering on the cross “blossoms red”. Love, Light, and Joy that comes out of sacrifice—the sacrificial life which blossoms by shedding itself.

Thoughts

In modern English, the word “hope” means “to look forward to with desire and reasonable confidence” or “that events will turn out for the best”. In other words, optimism. Does that mean hope and optimism are the same thing? Is hope as simple as having a specific kind of mindset? In our world of Teslas, retirement plans, and Trump, modern people (and Christians) no longer remember how to speak of ‘hope’. More precisely, we have lost the language of articulating what ‘hope’ is.

Hope has become simply a wish for a positive outcome in some future event in our modern language. But if hope is wishful thinking, it might easily be misconstrued as some kind of optimistic defense mechanism in response to the human condition. That is, hope acknowledges the significant obstacles and deep pitfalls of life because hope has no delusions of the present reality. While the ideas of hope and optimism share similar characteristics, only hope can bear the weight of the despair and desperation.

There was period in my life where despair and death were two friends I welcomed expectantly. In such a short amount of time, people I loved were passing away due to cancer, lifestyle choices, and unexpectant circumstances. I had no time to finish processing each person’s passing because death knocked again and again. Thus, I ended up struggling to process the death of my grandmother, uncle, cousin, and a close friend at the same time. It would be easy to write that I had some sort of hope in the midst of all this, but in truth I was in a great deal of despair. At the time, hope was hard for me to grasp onto. It was only by going back to the story of the resurrection I found hope once again.

The resurrection (or more specifically New Creation) paints a picture of our ultimate aim or goal as Christians (telos). As the Apostle John writes,

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Revelation 21:1-4)

This is a beautiful picture, however, there is a danger of seeing New Creation as an overly optimistic worldview. That is to say, it can be a slippery slope (at least for me it can be!) to see the resurrection AND New Creation as an attempt to turn our eyes away from the despair and suffering we see in world (and in our lives) and say “it will be made right”.

Therefore, the Christian life is not about ignoring despair through wishful thinking or seeing our lives as an one act story. It is about being present in despair and point to an expectation in the midst of that despair. This is essentially our faith: holding both hope and despair together.

Reflection

Take 30 seconds to 1 minute to reflect on what you read and your thoughts. After you finish reflecting, go back to Step 1 and listen to the song once more.

Uncategorized

In Between Death and Resurrection

Leave a comment

As we looked at in the last post, resurrection is physical. It is about bodies. The Christian hope is not a disembodied hope, but an embodied one. It does not do away with creation, but awaits its renewal. Resurrection, then, is not only about our dead bodies being raised, but about the deliverance of the entire cosmos from the death dealing decay of sin (Romans 8:18-25).

This event of Resurrection, it is thought, will happen at the end of time. When that day comes all the dead will be raised together, all at once, to receive new bodies to live in a newly restored creation.

But what happens to those who die before the end comes? That is, what happens if we die and the end does not come for another thousand years? Where do we go in the time between death and resurrection?

A modern day analogy that is as winsome as it is theologically astute comes from the scientist and theologian John Polkinghorne. He puts it this way: God will download our software onto his hardware until the time he gives us new hardware to run the software again for ourselves.

What is helpful about this analogy is that it holds together the body-soul distinction in a way that honors both without prizing one over the other. The soul (software) is what is needed to make the body (hardware) “work” whereas the body is required in order for the soul to “run.”

Hardware and software are an integral whole. Likewise, body and soul. One requires the other.

If the whole computer analogy seems all too technical and machine-like, we can think in terms of God’s memory. When we die all that we are is firmly held within the loving embrace of God’s remembrance. In reality, there is never a time in which we are not kept secure in the memory of God, in which past, present and future are stored permanently and perfectly. But it is enough for us to remember, when Death shows its face and bares its teeth, that our lives are not and will not be forgotten.

In dying we are not erased. God remembers us.

And as those who are remembered by God, we find ourselves re-membered, re-collected within the communion of saints, welcomed among those belonging to the family of God throughout space and time. And there we wait together. Together we wait for the time when God will raise us from the dead, when we are given new bodies to inhabit a renewed heavens and renewed earth.

This is the hope of resurrection. It is our hope in and for the renewal of all things; when our souls will be embodied once again just as in the end creation will become the embodiment of heaven, which is simply another way of saying what we pray every week – “your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

Uncategorized

Do Not Imagine They Are Christians?! (Justin Must Be Trippin!)

Leave a comment

This past Sunday (Easter Sunday) we looked at a rather harsh assertion by second century Christian apologist, Justin Martyr. Writing with what seems like a huge chip on his shoulder, Justin takes aim at those “who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven.” About such people he says, “Do not imagine that they are Christians.” They are in his eyes, “godless, impious heretics.”

What is so jarring about this claim is that what Justin calls heretical is precisely what we take today to be orthodox Christian belief. He is calling into question the very core of what we take the Christian faith to be all about. After all, isn’t this why we believe in Jesus in the first place? So that our souls will go to heaven when we die?

While we might not be inclined to raise the heresy threat level to code red, it is still worth exploring why this belief about our souls going to heaven is in the very least problematic.

On the charitable side, what we can say about the idea that our souls go to heaven when we die is that it isn’t wrong. It isn’t wrong, but it isn’t exactly right. Here, it is helpful to borrow a phrase coined by New Testament scholar N.T. Wright. He talks about life after life after death. That’s not a type-o.

Life after life after death.

What Wright means to say is that resurrection names the life that comes after what we commonly think of as life after death. What we commonly think of as life after death is the popular notion that our souls go to heaven after we die. Put this way, resurrection names the ultimate end for which we hope. That our souls go to heaven is only a passing moment. To imagine it as the whole of what we hope for is like mistaking the bathroom break we take before reaching our destination for the destination itself.

This helps us to realize that the Christian hope is not a disembodied hope. It is material. It is physical. It is resurrection. What happened to Jesus on a Sunday morning more than two thousands years ago is a preview of coming attractions. The biblical term is “firstfruits” (1 Cor. 15:20). As we often say, what we see God do for Jesus in raising his dead body from the grave is what God will one day do for all of creation (us included, God willing!).

This seems to be a more fitting end to the five-act story of (1) Creation/Fall, (2) Israel, (3) Jesus, (4) Church (5) The End. In this case, another title we could give to the fifth and final act is New Creation. The story is not about God abandoning creation, which is what we naturally come to believe when we assume that the ultimate hope of the biblical narrative is for our bodiless souls to end up in an ethereal heaven. But this, as we have been saying, is not the end for which we hope.

Resurrection is.

Resurrection preserves and honors God’s unrelenting and unfailing faithfulness to the good, good world created in and through the over-abundant love shared between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In this way, the end becomes the fulfillment, not the negation, of the beginning. This after all is what we find in the pages of Scripture – that the completion of the good work begun in Genesis is consummated by the time we reach the end of Revelation.

But we know that people die and that their bodies are buried. We bury the dead and the dead stay buried. Resurrection is something that does not occur in the natural course of things. Indeed, it is something we must wait for; an event that will come to us at the fulfillment of time. So then the question remains, “What happens to us when we die in the mean time?”

We’ll pick this up in a subsequent blog post.

Uncategorized

2019 Retreat Recap

Leave a comment

I thought I’d share my thoughts about the retreat as a way of (1) recapping the retreat for those who were not able to attend and (2) continuing the fruitful conversations that were birthed during the retreat.

To start, a little background on the theme…

Here is my first draft of the welcome note I wrote for the retreat program:

“Familiarity breeds contempt. When it comes to church, contempt may be too strong a word. Or maybe better put, at worst it can be contempt, but more often it’s a kind of inattentiveness or carelessness. Ideally, things we do week after week after week become second nature for us. The repetitiveness allows us to do them without thinking, so that they become as natural to us as breathing. But this isn’t always the case. The repetitiveness can also turn them into things we do unthinkingly – mindlessly doing what we’ve always done.

So it is with church.”

I thought it was a bit dark, so I changed it to this: “Our topic for the weekend is a simple one: Church. Whether it’s going to church, being church or doing church, like most things we do week after week after week, we can lose sight of where it is we’re trying to go, who it is we’re trying to be, what it is we’re trying to do.“

Either way, both capture the sentiment that inspired the theme for this year’s retreat: getting back to the basics of what (the point of) church is.

With such a theme, I knew of no one better to address it than my (our) good friend, Jon Tran.

Jon’s answer to the question revolved around two things: (1) Community and (2) Story. Putting these two together, the answer to the question, “What is church?” becomes: The church is a story-formed community. This story of course, is the story we find written in the pages of Scripture – a story, as Jon described, that can be told in 5 acts:

  1. Creation & Fall
  2. Israel
  3. Jesus
  4. Church
  5. The End (New Creation)

Many of us may be familiar with this 5-act structure, but, what I think Jon helped us to see is how beautiful and powerful and utterly remarkable this story is and the life-giving adventure it calls us into. This is what it means to be church: a people gathered around this story, which in the end is the stunning story of God’s self-giving love that refuses to abandon us (and creation) to the destructive emptiness of sin.

At this point in the retreat, things were moving along swimmingly, until we got to Saturday night, where words like “overwhelming” and “depressing,” were being uttered.

That night, Jon described the dire straits we find ourselves in. As many scientists have been warning, our greed and consequent disregard for the environment has stripped the earth of its ability to sustain life as we know it. Our situation is like that of a frog in water that is slowly being heated up. We don’t take seriously the warning signs, because we simply adapt to each degree of heat. The problem is that once we realize we are being boiled to death it is too late – indeed, some say we have already passed the point of no return.

If that wasn’t enough, we were then made to look at how our bottomless appetite for comfort and convenience, contributes to the continual oppression of those our economic system systemically and systematically hides from us. Our wealth is made possible by the relentless exploitation of our global neighbors. We go in, take what we want. When there is nothing left, we move on, leaving the place worse off and or desperate than when we entered.

We are like cannibals, voraciously feeding off the flesh of others to sustain and further our “way of life.”

Indeed, as Jon pointed out, cannibalism becomes an apt metaphor for what happens when we do not shape our lives around God’s good story of abundance and grace. That when we allow the story of the world, the story of sin and scarcity to shape us we cannot help but have our desires deformed in such a way that we devour any thing and any one for our own benefit.

Interestingly enough, as depressing as it was, many of us also found ourselves strangely warmed that night. Inspired even. We experienced the reality that when we are able to see the world for what it is – or more accurately, when we are able to see sin in all its disfiguring ugliness we are able to recognize just how wonderfully ridiculous the gospel is. I think this is what Paul meant when he said, “But where sin increased, grace increased all the more” (Romans 5:20). To face with brutal honesty the sin that infects us and the good world God created, it helps open our eyes to see again what we once saw so clearly – that there is no story so beautiful, so good and so true as the one that finds its heart in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, our Lord.

As Christians, as the Church, we then are called to be bearers of this story – to faithfully carry this story by living according to the hope contained within it.

Lastly, what I think was truly special about the weekend, was that there seemed (to me at least) to be a heightened appreciation for one another. That Jon’s talks as well as the testimonies that were shared throughout the weekend helped remind us what a gift it is that God has given us one another to be church together. We are fellow travelers on this great adventure called Church and we need one another to be and do what God intends for us to be and do (muck like the rabbits of Watership Down).

And so our last day (Sunday), we spent thinking and dreaming together about what is next for Christ Kaleidoscope. I think this is the question, the conversation, that we need to continue as a community. In the end, this is something that was at the heart of what we wanted Christ Kaleidoscope to be about – a community where we are able to discern together what it means to be God’s people, shaped by God’s story, in the specific time and place we find ourselves in. So let us continue the conversation…

What is next for Christ Kaleidoscope?

Uncategorized

Cleanliness & Light

Leave a comment

a reflection on Luke 11:14-12:12

by Katie Heemstra

While praying through this week’s readings I was truly at a loss for what to write about.  No one section or day really stood out to me and each one seemed so critical of something, which is honestly not fun to write about.  We have Jesus casting out demons and the famous, “a house divided cannot stand,” verse, we have a section on judgment and letting our light shine, another section on woes to the Pharisees, and finally a section on hypocrisy, fearing God but not fearing God at the same time, unforgivable blasphemy and finally the power of the Spirit to give us words.  What a jumble of topics! But in praying through this section of scripture as a whole, God started showing me a common theme in all of it: cleanliness and light.

The two are symbolically similar and tend to go hand in hand.  Where we find one it would be no surprise to find the other. Light can bring healing, cleansing is healing too.  Shedding light on a situation is a type of purging, which in turn is a type of cleaning. With that in mind then looking at the verses as a cohesive whole, I think Jesus is trying to convey the difference between true light and true cleanliness and that which is made or done through human effort.  

We see it first in the example in Luke 11:24-26, when an unclean spirit leaves a person and returns to that person finding everything tidied up and rearranged back in order, then invites all his demon friends back with him for the equivalent of a house party wreaking havoc on this poor man’s soul.  An odd example, right? I thought so, so I looked into some commentaries on these verses and they key to this scenario is that this person was expelled of the unclean spirit and tried to clean up the aftermath on his own (notice the use of swept clean – he basically dusted his house and put the pictures back up on the shelves, but did not put the effort in to truly, deeply clean) basically just cleaning up the demon’s room, inviting the spirit to come back.

Here’s a more tangible example…say you have an addiction and it has taken over your life.  You begin to see the destruction it is causing so you make up your mind to stop using whatever substance you’re addicted to.  You make it a couple days, maybe even a week or two, but something sets you off and you binge that substance so hard, you’re now even worse off than you were before you tried to quit.  This man tried to quit (“sweep his house”) on his own effort, but if he were to check himself into a rehab facility (“deep clean”) he would stand a chance against the onslaught of attack his addiction would have against him.  That deep cleaning is only available when we invite the Spirit in to help us clean up our act. It’s the only way to truly change our situation.

Next, we have the example of putting a lamp on a stand, rather than hiding it under a bowl in Luke 11:29-36.  We are warned in this passage to make sure that the light within us is not darkness. Another odd reference from Jesus.  How can light really be darkness? The answer is only if it is not from the true source of light: God our Father. If our light is coming from another source, say our own efforts to be righteous, it is not a true light we are shining, but a poor imitation.  We’re back to sweeping our own houses clean rather than letting the Spirit deep clean us: our effort versus letting God take control.

Third, we have the example of the Pharisee calling Jesus out for not washing before eating his meal (we’re back to the cleaning thing!).  Jesus throws it right back at the Pharisee accusing him of washing the outside of his dish but not the inside. Finally we have a fairly straightforward example: the Pharisee does much to make sure his outer appearance (how he looks, what he does, who he is perceived to be) follows the letter of the law, but his internal condition (his motivations, his desires, his heart) is quite dirty and ugly.  Jesus shows us the difference between the clean outside and clean inside in the examples in the following verses (Luke 11:43-52). Visible tithing, taking important seats in the synagogue, receiving respectful greetings in public are all focused on outer appearance. Cleanliness of the inside is shown as being generous to the poor and showing justice and the love of God to others. In order to do any of these things with a genuine heart rather than selfish motivation, we must be in tune with God and the Spirit.  It is his work through us that makes us able.

Finally we have the example of hypocrisy where truth is brought to light in the end (Luke 12:1-3).  Here we are, back to the light once more! We are warned that whatever we think we’re doing in secret will one day be revealed to all.  Whether this revelation will come through people coming to see our true character in this life or if all will be revealed in the next, we don’t know, but the heart of Jesus’ statement is if we act in the manner of the Spirit, truly cleansed on the inside, acting in love, justice and mercy we will have nothing to fear in this life or the next.  I think this is why Jesus continues on to say we should not be afraid of others who can only kill our bodies, but only fear God who can eternally damn us to hell. God sees what is done in secret, He sees if we are only working in our own effort to sweep our houses clean or only wash the outside of the dish. He sees our hearts and our true motivations.  BUT, we are to fear His judgment, we are not to fear Him, because He is the only one who can redeem us, make us truly clean, bring light into every situation in our lives.  We are to run to him with hearts wide open asking for His cleansing love and righteousness to make us well and whole and able to show his love to the rest of his children here on earth.

A lot easier said than done, right?  It sure is for me. But that is the beauty of the Holy Spirit’s work in our lives.  Just as He will come and teach us what to say when we are called out to speak (Luke 12:11-12), He also comes when we ask to gently (yet deeply) clean out our hearts and shed light on our actions and circumstances.  It is not by our own efforts alone that we are going to be able to do what Jesus is asking of us. We have four examples in just these passages of how that does not work. We must first go to God, rely on Him to do His work in us, and in our willingness to be shaped, cleansed, and used by Him, we will be filled to overflowing with the love, justice, and mercy God calls us to act out in our lives.

artwork:Woe Unto You, Scribes and Pharisees, James Tissot (1836-1902)

Uncategorized

The Good Samaritan

Leave a comment

a reflection on Luke 10:25-37

by Serena Lee

This passage that describes the conversation between the expert (lawyer) and Jesus includes the most famous commands of the Bible: to love the Lord your God, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Moreover, it includes the famous parable of The Good Samaritan that Jesus tells in order to convey to the expert what “neighbor” means. We may have heard this story and been reminded of these commands time and time again. But I hope that by sharing a bit of my own processing of this story with you, it will bring a fresh perspective and a gentle conviction that we will never be able to “graduate” from learning God’s love. That is, God’s love is not something to be achieved nor earned, but rather an ever-growing relationship between the Lover and the beloved.

The expert of the law and Jesus seem to have a cordial conversation, and in fact seem to be in agreement with one another. They both agree that (paraphrasing) “loving the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength” and “love your neighbor as yourself” are two important commands written in the law. Jesus’ response “do this, and you will live” brings up the expert’s wonderful question of how he should carry out these commands. 

This part of the story, Jesus inserts yet another story (a pericope) in order to present to the expert who “neighbor” is. At this point, we have all read and heard the sermons attempting to help us connect with each character of the story: the Levite, the priest, the Samaritan, and even the observer of the story. What we may have not paid much attention to is how a sermon prompts listeners to take on the perspective of each character significantly changes what we take away from this short story. 

For example, a sermon that focuses on the perspective of the Levite or priest perhaps prompts challenges listeners to think about their own judgments and prejudice against people they consider as “the other,” just like the wounded, unnamed man. If preached from the perspective of the Good Samaritan, the sermon may encourage listeners to think about those they consider “the other” and serve them the way the Good Samaritan has. Even as an observer in the story, it is clear that the Samaritan is considered “the other” when compared to the Levite and priest, and therefore should be welcomed into the kingdom of God for showing mercy to the wounded man. 

The only character that we have not yet taken perspective of is the wounded, unnamed man’s. Though his role in the story is quite passive, I understand that he represents pain, suffering, and hurt in this world. I’m positive most of us have not experienced being beaten half to death, but perhaps for our purposes, let’s take up his perspective of pain, hopelessness, and desperate need for a neighbor. 

This unnamed man has no background or context, only that his life depends on the mercy of someone who will give it. Because we cannot assume the identity of this name, we don’t know what his reaction would be if a Levite or priest were to have helped him. However, I wonder if it would have mattered to this unnamed man if the Levite or priest did help him. Would he have been more thankful? Would he have tried to repay them? I don’t think so…I think he would have reacted the same because he simply needed a neighbor. That is, he needed someone to show him mercy. 

Of course, there is significance that the Samaritan plays the role of the neighbor, especially given that Luke writes for a Gentile audience. Thus, I think Jesus uses the Samaritan as the example not to create the dichotomy of “other” and “included”, but to actually eliminate otherness. After all, the kingdom of God will not have “others.” This is a taste of heaven. We may need to categorize “others” for now, but we do so as a means to an end, a tool in order to eventually create relationships of equality and reciprocity, just as Jesus did in the story by making the Samaritan an example as the Neighbor.

Neighbor is not the one who is included or excluded. Neighbor is not “us vs. them.” Neighbor is not our group and “others”. Neighbor is not beneficiary and benefactor. Neighbor is not patronizing. 

Neighbors are patient. Neighbors are kind. They do not envy, they do not boast, they are not proud. They do not dishonor others, they are not self-seeking, they are not easily angered, they keep no record of wrongs. Neighbors do not delight in evil, but rejoice with the truth. Neighbors protect, trust, hope, and persevere.

There is no cultural, socio-economic, racial/ethnic, or gender construct or barrier that restricts one from becoming or having a neighbor. For being a neighbor only requires mercy and love—transformed through the love of God—which means anyone can be a neighbor, and anyone can have a neighbor. We know who our “others” are. We have all been the “other.” But I think otherness begins to cease when we can recognize that there is a neighbor-ness (and need for neighbor) in each of us, which allows us to sense a common humanity among the people that God has called us to love.

artwork:The Good Samaritan, Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890)