Friday, September 10, 2010

randomz

Clare is coming over in a little bit, and we're going to make smoothies from a recipe book she bought. I really like her and enjoy spending time with her. We're just seeing where it's going, but I'm optimistic nonetheless. Today is payday and I have a few errands to run later in the day, not least buying some more paper from Office Max (as with pens, so it is with paper: my paper comes only from Office Max, and my pens come only from Staples). Like I said, this weekend I'll put up my review of N.T. Wright's "Evil & The Justice of God." I keep rereading different sections, the text coming alive to me all over again. The main thrust of the book, at least for me, is seen on two fronts; but, alas, I'm getting ahead of myself! I've ordered some more N.T. Wright books--namely, the first three books of his supposedly to-be six-volume series on Jesus & God & Christian origins; each is around 1000 pages (if not more) and should consume my winter reading. I have today off but then launch into a seven-day stretch (nothing compared to the 12-day stretch I just worked). In the spirit of N.T. Wright, I leave you with a quote from "Evil & The Justice of God" regarding the fall in Genesis 3:

Humans, instead of worshiping God as the source of their life, give allegiance to the nonhuman creation. The earth, instead of being wisely ruled by God-fearing, image-bearing stewards, shares the curse for the sake of idolatrous mankind. Death, which we may rightly see as a natural and harmless feature of the original landscape, now assumes the unwelcome guise of the executioner coming grimly to prevent the poison spreading too far. (pp 52)

Thursday, September 09, 2010

on death

A woman from Dylan’s house church died unexpectedly of leukemia yesterday morning. Nine months ago the diagnosis came, and things were looking up, and out-of-the-blue she felt sick with a fever and then died a few hours later. She was only middle-age and left behind a loving husband and several teenage kids. The shock felt by family is immeasurable, and the shock felt by her loving house church is but a glimpse of what her immediate family is going through. I thought about this a lot last night, and I kept remembering St. Paul’s words in Philippians, where he talked about yearning to die and be with Christ in paradise.

He’d been there before, been swept up to the “third heaven”, that place called Paradise where the dead redeemed live in rest and tranquility, taking deep breaths and even (as Revelation seems to imply) reign alongside Christ. There’s a lot of ambiguity and confusion in the church regarding what happens when someone dies, and the modern conception of “heaven”—this ethereal, pie-in-the-sky place where we sit on clouds and play harps all day—doesn’t really make one share St. Paul’s enthusiasm (“He must be nuts!” we say). Without getting into the long (albeit fascinating) history of where this modern idea of heaven came from (or, rather, evolved from), I’ll just say that it’s wildly off-base. The Bible doesn’t really tell us much about the afterlife; it’s called Paradise, from the Greek paradeismos (or something like that), which was a Greek word depicting a beautiful garden with trees and orchards and fountains and a high gate protecting it from hostile forces. It is derived from a Persian word that was used in reference to the Hanging Gardens of Babylon (the most exquisite gardens in the history of mankind to-date). The Jews took this Greek word and used it in their Greek Old Testament, and they used it to talk about the Garden of Eden. I like the idea of paradise being the Garden of Eden, in the realm of God (“But wasn’t the Garden a physical place? And isn’t Heaven a spiritual place?” Our preconceived notions of heaven as a “spiritual” place as opposed to a “physical” place should be rattled simply by Jesus reigning bodily and physically in heaven; heaven refers to the realm of God and shouldn’t carry with it supra-spiritual overtones). Regardless, we can be sure that paradise is a pretty great place to be. It speaks of rest, relaxation, “taking a breather”. Paul, having been there, speaks of being there, in contrast to being “in the body” (that is to say, in his perishable body living a perishable life in a perishable world), as being “far better.” Personally, I anticipate death and am excited about it; not in some passively-suicidal way, but in a mature and logically-thinking way.

I am of the opinion that the funerals of the redeemed should be joyous occasions where we celebrate the fact that our loved ones now dwell with God and are resting and, perhaps, ruling with God until the day when God remakes the heavens and earth and gives his people new bodies in which they’ll live and reign in this new earth. I want my funeral to be filled with upbeat songs and dancing and I want people to drink good wine and to take shots and to share laughter and love and be jealous of my current state. Yet at the same time, I know that this doesn’t fully take into account the great loss felt by death. It would be super-spiritual to say, “Death is a great gift!” but that’s ignoring the reality of what death is. Death, while perhaps being an integral and beautiful piece of God’s original creation, has taken up the guise of the executioner, now unleashing its wrath upon God’s image-bearing creatures. Death drops its scythe upon all of mankind, and the depth of the loss is felt by everyone. We were not meant to die. We were meant to develop into fully-flourishing human beings and to stay that way. Death brings it all to an (apparent) end. Death is a reminder that God’s new world, though inaugurated with the resurrection of Jesus and experienced in various degrees in the here-and-now, is not yet here in its fullest form. Death still raises its ugly head and suffering still runs rampant. Though defeated, evil continues to flourish and prosper. Death reminds us of this. Even those who have been closest to God, most devoted to God, most in love with God, feel the sting of death. Yet for those who are members of God in Christ, the sting of death is taken away—death is not the end of the story. Jesus rose from the grave. He conquered death. And we who have participated in Jesus’ death and resurrection by aligning ourselves with him and his cross have conquered death as well—though death may sinks its teeth into us, the victory belongs to us and to our King, who has gone into death and come out the other side.

I am reminded of St. Paul’s words to the Thessalonian Christians, who were in great anguish over the deaths of some of their fellow Christians. They presumed that since they had died, then they would not participate in God’s new world. Paul’s rebuttal, seen throughout the letter in various ways, is an adamant “NO!” to this idea. The dead are with Christ in paradise and will get to participate in God’s new world. That strange, apocalyptic, and metaphor-riddled text in 1 Thessalonians 4, where Paul talks about Jesus coming to earth as the royal king to deal with the problems—and the redeemed helping him in that text—give a more-than-certain hope to those who have lost loved ones. Death is not the end of the story. Those who have died are with Jesus, and when Jesus appears, they will appear with him in glory—and those in Christ who have not died will join them! When Jesus appears, all the righteous dead will be flanked at his sides, joining in the “cavalry charge”—and those who are “on earth” will take their stand with their brothers and sisters, will take their stand alongside Christ, and they will receive—we will receive—new bodies and will inherit a new universe where we will live and reign with God.

St. Paul tells the Thessalonians, “Do not grieve like the pagans, who have no hope.” He is not saying, “Don’t grieve.” Jesus wept over the loss of his friend Lazarus—he felt the sting of loss, felt the bitterness of death, even before he experienced it himself. We find Christians mourning over Stephen, the first Christian martyr, while acknowledging his presence in paradise. Death hurts. The loss is overwhelming. Anyone who denied this, especially on religious grounds, is a nut-case. Yes, there’s hope. But that doesn’t eliminate the loss, the pain, the suffering death causes. We are to mourn, but unlike the pagans, we are to mourn with hope. We are to focus on the future, that day when we will be reunited with our loved ones who have been lowered into the ground, that day when we will join them side-by-side and reign along with them in the new universe.

I’m tired and I’m not even going to bother editing this post. These are just things I’ve been thinking about. My sympathies go out to Dylan’s friends and to the family of the woman who died (I don’t even know her name). My prayer is not that people will deny their pain, or try to color it up with religious lace, but will acknowledge the hurt and the loss and, simultaneously, find hope in the cosmic and eschatological future. Though I know that’s easier said than done.

Monday, September 06, 2010

the dayton days (32)

aerial view of Caesar's Creek
Monday. I worked 7:30-4:00, and at 5:00 Tyler and I joined Ams, who's in town, for dinner at Skyline Chili. We played Wii and then went to Wal-Mart and Dad and I self-fumigated the house and the spray felt like pepper spray.

Tuesday. I worked 5-11:00 with Wade, Asenath, Carly, and Tony. Forrest quit and is working across the street at Lexis Nexis. After work I met Clare at I.G.A. and we got waters and went hiking at Caesar's Creek. The old swinging bridge has been torn down! We took off our shoes and waded into the creek and sat down on the rocks and she kept splashing me. We went to the beach and swam for two hours. We grabbed dinner at Taco Bell, and then I dropped her off at I.G.A. so she could hurry to work. Sunburnt and tired, I took a shower and lounged around the house. Oh: Mandy K. is dating someone, that's probably why she cut communication with me this summer. 

Wednesday. I worked 6-1:00 and then had my six-month review and nailed a half-dollar raise. I'm one of the three strong baristas (minus the supervisors). After work I had Subway for lunch. Dylan, Tyler, and Pat D. came over, and we went to North Park and played in the creek, and we headed back to my place for Wii.

Thursday. I worked 5:30-2:00. We had a skeleton crew and were swamped. Partners from Richmond (where Jess Lynn works) and Coleraine covered the evening shifts for a Starbucks outing: canoeing and a bonfire with Jimmy John's subs! 

Friday. I worked 6-8:00 this morning (yes, only two hours) and when I got home I did laundry, worked out, cleaned my room and the front porch. Clare came over around 11:00. I introduced her to Maebe and made her some hot chocolate, and we played Mario-Kart and cuddled on the couch and made out. We took a nap and went to North Park and explored and then she went to work. Clare came by after work and we sat on the back porch, cuddling and watching the stars.

Saturday. I slept in till 9:00 and it was WONDERFUL. I ate light today: just eggs and toast. I went to the Route 48 Starbucks to do some reading (N.T. Wright). I downloaded the Inception soundtrack and helped Dad work on the roof. The weather's beautiful: windy and cool. I broke out my autumn clothes and cowboy boots. I worked 8-10:00 covering for Denise; good times with Abby, Betsy, and Chris. Abby asked if I ever get upset after a review. "No, why?" Apparently girl baristas often cry. "I',m pretty apathetic to it," I said. "I'm not making Starbucks my career." Or at least I hope not. Ams' frustrations with Sarah continue to grow: "She can't pay her bills, and she complains about it, and then she spends all her money on beer, pizza and gas to go to Hamilton every weekend to party it up!" And to make matters worse, she's been laid off from Millennium and has two weeks to find a job. Ams is freaking out, of course, because if Sarah can't pay the bills, Ams is held responsible for rent.

Sunday. I slept in till about 8:00 and went to the Route 48 Starbucks to continue through Wright's "Justification" while sipping an iced chai tea. I worked 3-10:30 covering for Aubree who's in Iowa, and several girls flirted with me. All high schoolers, of course. Things with Clare don't seem to be working out: I like her well enough, but she doesn't want kids and wants to join the Peace Corps for a few years. Nothing wrong with any of that, but there's quite an incongruity between what she wants and what I want.

crucifying the mind

I am constantly reminded at how much I need to reorient my thinking around the gospel. Last night while at work I found myself in the drive thru watching car after car come through. These were nice cars, the expensive kind of cars that only those with bookus of money (or bookus of debt) are able to buy. These were people with nice and well-paying jobs with regular hours. They were handsome men with beautiful wives. I found myself envying them--the successful careers, the immaculate cars, the good-looking physique and the beautiful broads. I kept looking at my own situation--working full-time at Starbucks making minimum wage and having difficulty paying my bills, driving a wretched-looking car that threatens to break apart every time I hit a bump, an awkward body with a massive chest--and I honestly became a little depressed. It gets worse when those handsome men in the nice cars are people I graduated high school with; usually no words are said, but more than once they've laughed seeing me in my green apron handing out drinks and running a cash register. All of this envy and jealousy of their money and social success is symptomatic of a heart that has not yet come in tune with the rhythms of the gospel; it is symptomatic of a mind that is in dire need of renewal. The pride of life runs deep through my veins, and I must crucify it again and again. The renewing of the mind, I think, is no passive thing; it is a hard and at times excruciating endeavor, killing off all those thoughts that lose sight of the way things are and instead seek self-glorification and ease in life. I know the gospel and I know the Christian message--the two are actually not the same thing--and I know the Christian hope; and I know that as a member of God's covenant people reworked around Jesus, my hope is not to be "in the pride of life and lust of the eyes and lusts of the flesh" but in the eschatological victory over sin and death, of a new and recreated universe. A day is coming when, dare I even say it, all my dreams will come true, when I will experience the existentialist's wet dream, being fully and finally who I was created to be and living-out fully and finally that God-given vocation. But right now there is tension, a tension held taught between two historical poles: Easter and Consummation. Evil, albeit defeated, still looms large and heavy and even prospers in its own crippled manner. The world is still characterized by sin and death even though both of them have been defeated in Jesus' death and resurrection. Right now my vocation is not to "live the dream" but to "bear the cross"--and bearing the cross isn't fun.

Sunday, September 05, 2010

waiting for work...

I had today off but picked up an evening shift to help out my friend Aubree. So now I'm just waiting for 2:40 to come so I can get in my car and do my thing. This next week should be pretty easy: I work a variety of different shifts and lots of short ones, and I have two days off (worked every day this week, albeit two days I only worked two-hour shifts; long story). Amidst all of this I plan on finishing Wright's "Evil & The Justice of God" (it's a very short book but quite dense in content and scope, so it's taking me a while to work through it) and start his newest book "Justification", of which I've heard a plethora of great reviews (though undoubtedly John Piper is not too big a fan). I also want to make considerable progress in my book "Re:Framing Repentance"; I'm almost done with the last chapter, which is a brief introduction to the technicalities of salvation (Christus victor, propitiation/expiation, redemption/liberation, justification and glorification). It's been a fun chapter to write, though difficult. The material is interesting to me, but most people, even Christians, probably won't find all these theological nuances too interesting. I am paying particular attention to the themes of salvation as restoration and renewal to humanity's true intended identity as priests, rulers, and gardeners; and considerable attention to making the point that salvation is not solely a human-oriented thing but also something (as we see in texts like Ephesians 1, Colossians 1, and Romans 8) with cosmic consequences. The cross wasn't just about human beings; it was about the entire cosmos.

Also, I've finished watching all the seasons of Bones. Now I am turning my attention to the tv show "Weeds." It's hilarious. A soccer mom whose husband has died finds herself in dire financial straits and turns to selling marijuana to make ends meet. Ams, Sarah and I used to watch it all the time last summer, and on Netflix I can send all the seasons directly to the TV. It's pretty exciting.

I'm dreading making about two hundred of these tonight:

Saturday, September 04, 2010

the sermon: "forgiving others"

When we talk about the cross of Christ, specifically in regards to the purpose it served, it is easy to become removed from the actual event; it is easy to leap into the world of theory and hypothesis without coming face-to-face with the blood that was spilled, the agony that was endured, and the cosmic importance of God crucified. We often forget that what happened on the cross was a turning point in human history, the long-awaited fulfillment of what God had promised he would always do: deal with the evil in the world, namely overpowering it and defeating it. The cross of Christ gives a glimpse into the paradox of how God does things: while it seemed that the powers of evil were leading Jesus to the cross in triumphal procession, the reality of it all was that Jesus himself was leading the powers of evil to the cross in triumphal procession. When Jesus’ death is talked about, most often it is talked about in reference to the atonement; and the atonement, being one of the most shocking and stunning realities of what happened on the cross, can easily become detached from the over-arching purpose of the cross itself. We must remember that in the cross, in the suffering and death of Jesus, evil itself was defeated and dismantled.

Atonement—the doctrine that speaks of God forgiving us so that our relationship with him can be restored—only finds itself truly coming to life within the framework of what has been called the Christus victor approach to the cross: that in the cross, God dealt decisively with evil, destroying its power and thus dismantling it. The new age given birth through the death and resurrection of Jesus—an age characterized quite poignantly by the forgiveness of sins—is an age where evil’s power and sway over the world has been, to say the least, crippled.

When we talk about the atonement, we must talk about forgiveness. Forgiveness is the centerpiece of what atonement is all about. The most elemental understanding of atonement is that it is what happens when God forgives a sinner, thus reconciling the sinner to himself. There is much more to it than that, but that’s the gist of it all. An adequate understanding of atonement must take into consideration the reality of forgiveness. When we talk about God forgiving us, we do not mean that he pretends that we were never that bad after all; we do not mean that he excuses us for what we’ve done and who we’ve become; we do not mean that he is simply ignoring all of that awful stuff about us. At the heart of biblical forgiveness is the destruction and dismantling of evil: when God forgives a person, the evil within that person and all the evil things he has done or thought is not ignored, excused, or turned into something “not really that bad”; rather, all of that stuff is defeated. Evil’s affect upon our relationship with God is broken, destroyed, annihilated. That is at the heart of forgiveness: forgiveness is what happens when the evil that has taken place between two sides of a relationship is named for what it is, condemned for what it is, and then defeated for what it is—and thus the relationship is restored. If forgiveness were anything but that, it wouldn’t be forgiveness at all.

When we talk about the Christian commandment to forgive our neighbors, oftentimes there is a transition in thought. While we will say, of course, that forgiveness between God and man involves the destruction and dismantling of the evil between them, we will often say that forgiveness means something quite different when it is between two mere human beings. Forgiveness takes on several different forms when the context changes, and these perceptions of forgiveness which have infiltrated the church on every level are at best distortions of biblical forgiveness and at worst mockeries of it.

In some cultures, especially in the Middle East, and even within many religions, forgiveness is not viewed as a duty or even as a virtue, but rather as a moral weakness. Forgiveness is what weak people do; it is the easy way out of the situation of evil, the way of avoiding the hard task of bringing about justice. Some will even go so far as to say that forgiveness doesn’t take evil very seriously. The Christian conviction, however, is that forgiveness does take evil seriously, and that in the naming of that evil and in the acknowledging of that evil for what it is, forgiveness is the act whereby the evil itself is defeated.

Others will say that forgiveness is the same thing as tolerance. It’s been hip in the church to say that we must be “inclusive”, that Jesus welcomed all kinds of people just as they were and since the church believes in forgiveness, the church should thus let the doors fly open and let everyone do everything they want. The “forgiving” church is the one that reinstates a preacher after a bout of sexual immorality; the “forgiving” church is the church that allows elders to keep their positions after dipping their hands into the church’s finances; the “forgiving” church is the one that allows convicted pedophiles to go into children’s ministry—well, normally we don’t say the last of these, which shows that we’ve retained at least some amount of common sense. Forgiveness is not the same as tolerance, inclusivity, or indifference. Inclusiveness, taken at the extreme, means ignoring evil, downplaying it, or even embracing it in the spirit of welcoming; forgiveness involves naming it, facing it, and defeating it.

More common mistakes regarding how we view forgiveness is saying that forgiveness means professing that the evil didn’t matter. But if it didn’t matter, then there’s no need for forgiveness. The fact that forgiveness is needed means that evil did happen, it was awful, and it needs to be dealt with. Another mistake is the idea that forgiveness means pretending that the evil didn’t happen; part of the point of forgiveness is committing oneself to working towards the point where I can act as if it didn’t happen. But it did happen, and it mattered, and forgiveness isn’t supposing that it didn’t or turning a blind eye to the fact that it did. It’s looking hard at the fact that it did happen and making a conscious effort of the will to set it aside so that it doesn’t become a barrier between the people involved.

These false perceptions of forgiveness will often plague us. We must remember that when the Bible talks about God forgiving us and us forgiving those who sins against us, there is no change in the meaning of forgiveness. Forgiveness means the same thing in both cases, and the command to forgive is resplendent throughout the New Testament. Jesus taught us to pray that God will forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. In Matthew 18, Jesus warned that unless we forgive, we will not be forgiven: the servant who was forgiven a massive debt but who then refused to forgive a tiny one to a fellow servant had the initial forgiveness revoked. This is a difficult text but we’ll look at it in a moment. The point is made, however, that forgiveness is a pretty big deal in the Christian faith. God has forgiven us, so we are to forgive others. Period. This means that when evil takes place between us and someone else, and when that evil is pressed against us from the other person, we are to forgive. We’re not to pretend it didn’t happen, or say it really wasn’t that bad, or ignore it altogether. Forgiveness involves, as I’ve said again and again, naming the evil and shaming it. It means acknowledging in all its awful depth the evil that happened and facing it for what it is. Often this means difficult and nauseating confrontation, but it is confrontation that must take place. Forgiveness, after the acknowledgment of the evil between the two people, is a determination on the side of the offended to do everything in his or her power to resume an appropriate relationship with the one who sinned against them. It means settling in one’s own mind that we will not allow this evil to determine the nature of our relationship. It is, in essence, reconciliation: in forgiveness, the naming of that evil and the defeating of that evil by living as if it didn’t happen when acknowledging that it did, reconciliation, the re:harmonizing of the relationship, takes place.

The question is begged, “How often should we forgive someone when they sin against us?” It’s not a new question; in Matthew 18.21-22, Peter asked Jesus the same question. We find Peter asking Jesus, “How many times should I forgive my brother? As many as seven times?” Many ancient Jews taught that the maximum amount of times for forgiving someone for the same offense was three times; Peter’s speculation of seven is quite commendable: twice the norm and plus one! Jesus’ response is cryptic: “No, not seven times, but seventy times seven.” This is not some abstract proposal—forgive your brother 490 times, and then you are allowed to cease forgiving—nor is it just figurative language—keep forgiving your brother time and time again. Rather, Jesus is looking back to an ancient prophecy found in Daniel 9, where the prophet Daniel asks an angel how long the exile will continue. “Will it be seventy years, as Jeremiah foretold?” The angel answers, “No: it will be seventy times seven.” 490 years—seventy years times seven—is how long it will take “to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness” (verse 24). Jesus’ cryptic answer points back to this promise, and he is saying that the New Age has dawned, the kingdom has come, the age of forgiveness has broken forth. The only reasonable response is to embrace and embody this new age, the new age of the kingdom, this new age of forgiveness: forgiving is to be a way-of-life for the members of this kingdom.

The commandment to forgive, then, is not simply a new and tougher piece of ethics that we dare not even attempt. The command flows directly from the situation Jesus has inaugurated and sealed in his death and resurrection. The atonement is not simply an abstract transaction making God’s forgiveness available to all who want it; it is the towering and shocking achievement by which evil itself was defeated so God’s new age could begin. And those who claim to follow Jesus, who are members of this kingdom and thus of this new age, are to embody that reality.

The claims of the church—that a new age has dawned that is characterized by forgiveness of sins and thus by reconciliation—is made a mockery as long as we continue to live in a stubborn refusal to forgive those who sin against us. When we are more than happy to claim God’s forgiveness of us and yet harbor resentment, distrust, and, essentially, an unforgiving disposition towards those around us, we are mocking the cross and living as if our faith is a sham. By refusing to forgive others, we are calling God a liar, we are calling this new age a farce, and we are conniving with the forces of darkness and spreading our legs wide to sin and death. And when we do this, when we deny the reality of the kingdom in our own lives, we let the evil that was done fester and boil within us. The evil takes hold and spreads through our hearts, minds, and souls. We distance ourselves from others and stop trusting people; we call it strength, but really it’s coldness. We become calloused creatures who cannot forgive nor accept forgiveness, broken and pitiable creatures who cannot love nor accept love. The refusal to forgive doesn’t just deny the reality of the cross and of the atonement; it allows evil to enslave us, and we become dehumanized. Our lives become consumed with bitterness anger, and resentment. We become grouches and grumpies, and that’s the most benevolent sketch of what happens to us; in all truth, what happens is that we become sub-human. Not forgiving others is something to be taken very seriously.

That Jesus takes it seriously is seen in Matthew 18.23-35. I promised we would look at this text, and now we will. Jesus isn’t saying that forgiving others is an arbitrary commandment and if we don't do it, then God won’t forgive us. He is, rather, pointing out that the one who refuses to forgive is the one who is embroiled in his or her own self-worth and pride. He is the one who exalts himself over everyone and everything else. He is the one who makes himself, and his own convictions, his God; he is thus making himself out to be the Judge and Juror. And when he does this, he cannot at the same times be a servant of God. He may make a showy pretense of religion, and read the Bible every day and pray, but his own refusal to forgive is symptomatic of the fact that he has not yet truly experienced forgiveness.

Forgiving others is not an easy thing to do. It is hellishly difficult, especially when the pain and hurt is immense. It is much easier to try to pretend it didn’t happen, or to say that it didn’t matter, or to try and numb the pain through all sorts of escapism techniques. All of this doesn’t deal with the evil; it just gives it room to grow and exponentially multiply like gangrene spreading through a wound. The very act of acknowledging that evil has been done, that someone has been sinful, hurtful, and damaging to us is difficult. And while that may be difficult, the act of forgiveness—not letting what happened affect the relationship—is bound to be pretty near to impossible sometimes. This is when we must rely on the strength of the Spirit, and it often means that we forgive others even when our hearts are not in it: forgiveness is often not a pleasant thing, and sometimes it means we grit our teeth and do it despite every inclination not to do so. It is by this great and difficult act that the evil is defeated and reconciliation takes place, though often in small steps and over much time. Forgiveness isn’t ignoring the evil, excusing the evil, or forgetting the evil—it is, and I can’t stress this enough, defeating the evil by disallowing it to exercise its power over us and over the relationship.

It is at this point that I encourage everyone to examine their own lives and to ask the question, “Do I forgive others?” And I mean really forgive them. Do we not shirk away from confronting evil when it happens? Do we not then seek to establish reconciliation with those who have hurt us? If we do not, then there is good reason for us to ask the next question: “Do I really love God?” It is, after all, the greatest commandment, to love God. Loving God essentially means being devoted to God; and if we refuse to forgive, then our devotion is upon ourselves (which, ironically, leads to the destruction of ourselves; yet another paradox!). But beware: the question isn’t “Do I find it easy to forgive?” but “Do I forgive?”

* * *

This is the sermon manuscript from last Sunday. Admittedly it is a topic from whence I drew much inspiration from N.T. Wright (I "quote" him a few times, though without reference; that would never fly in the scholastic world). His chapter on forgiveness in "Evil & The Justice of God" far outweighs anything in this sermon, and I recommend giving it a read. As to making a five-part series on forgiving others, I decided not to do it. Laziness is to blame, and I have other stuff I need to be spending my time on. But, regardless, there's the second sermon I preached at F.C.C.

Friday, September 03, 2010

'ello Septicemia

Last Tuesday my friend Clare and I--she is a special friend--went to Caesar's Creek. We were going to play on the decrepit swing bridge with the rotting boards, but for some reason--probably due to the fact that one's trek across it was the equivalent of flirting with certain death--the park rangers tore it down. So instead we played in the creek and chased a snake and then went to the Lake and swam for a while. The next day I went to North Park with several friends and I wanted to climb the crumbling cliff-face but it was closed off. I'm going to go again tomorrow and follow the creek to it; it's a longer path but I doubt they've closed off the creek-bed. This morning I worked 6-8:00 (yes, only two hours) and now I'm getting ready to see Clare again. She's coming over to the house to meet Maebe and see my place and we're going to maybe go swimming and fix lunch and I'm going to introduce her to Mario Kart.

This evening I plan on finishing the next chapter in my book on repentance; the chapter is entitled "Re:defining Salvation" and it essentially puts salvation within its Judeo-historical framework, thus alienating the inaccuracies of both conservative evangelicalism and liberal progressivism in their soteriological convictions. The book has been great fun to write, think about, and study for; yet I take the humility of N.T. Wright as my own and blatantly confess, "20% of what I'm going to write will be wrong. I just don't know what 20% it is." 20% is a pretty conservative estimate, to be honest. Truthfully, I often feel like I'm writing about things far over my head, and that even in my deepest ponderings and most detailed studies, I feel as if I am just scratching the surface. Nevertheless, I do hope that it will serve the kingdom in some way, shape, and form. It is the first book in a four-part series I'm going to be doing; "Re:Framing Repentance" will be followed by "Re:Framing Faith", "Re:Framing Baptism", and "Re:Framing Salvation." I'm excited about all of them. Each book will probably be around, oh, 300 pages, I'm guessing. The first is already at 60 pages and I've only got the first three chapters of twelve written :(. But some of the later chapters will be significantly shorter.

P.S. The title of this post was supposed to be "Hello September" but I misspelled September and the word processor automatically changed it to Septicemia (which is apparently a medical term denoting the presence of bacteria in the blood). So far as I know I don't have septicemia, but it's a cool word nonetheless. Here is a cute picture of a turtle from Caesar's Creek:

The Children's Westminster Catechism: Question 4

Question: How can you glorify God? Answer: By loving him and doing what he commands. We saw in Question 3 of the Children's Catechism th...