Something Else Entirely: The Story of Cornelius and Peter

Dan and I are constantly saying that our hope for this gathering is that it would be genuinely helpful for two kinds of people. We hope that it will be a place that is helpful for people who have made some sort of commitment to Jesus and are exploring the implications of that. But we also hope that it is a safe place for the spiritually curious, for those of you that are interested in Jesus and are looking for a place to check him out.

One of the cool things about today’s passage is that it is a story about precisely these two kinds of people. It is about one guy who is committed to Jesus but like most of still hasn’t totally figured out what that means yet. And it is about another guy who is not remotely committed to Jesus…but is honestly and earnestly searching for something transcendent…something he knows is out there but can’t quite identify yet.

First we have Peter. So most of you know we have been looking at the book of Acts, which is the story of what happened in the years immediately after the death and resurrection of Jesus. The disciples were on the steep learning curve all the way through the book of Acts. But I feel like there is this unhelpful Sunday school picture of the disciples that they were clueless until Jesus raised and the Holy Spirit fell on them and they go through this mystical transformation and suddenly have everything figured out. I ran into this perspective in an unexpected place this summer. I am in this reading group with Dan and a couple other guys and we read a little novel that I love, The Catcher in the Rye. Holden, the narrator, protagonist says this…

“Finally, though, I got undressed and got in bed. I tried to pray, but I couldn’t do it. I can’t always pray when I feel like it. In the first place, I’m sort of an atheist. I like Jesus and all, but don’t care too much for most of the other stuff in the Bible. Take the Disciples, for instance. They annoy the hell out of me, if you want to know the truth. They were all right after Jesus was dead and all, but while he was alive, they were about as much use to him as a hole in the head….If you want to know the truth, the guy I like best in the Bible next to Jesus, was that lunatic and all, that lived in the tombs and kept cutting himself with stones. I like him about ten times as much as the Disciples.” Catcher in the Rye.

Holdon is not what you would call a fan of the disciples. Yet even one of the disciple’s biggest detractors has this sense that they magically and totally changed the instant Jesus turned things over to them. Personally, I would find it really frustrating if that were true, because that has not been my experience. Very little suddenly changed when I turned my life over to Jesus. But that is not what happened at all. The disciples remain very human and very much ‘under construction’ by God throughout the book of Acts. The Bible does not whitewash its characters. We are about to find out that the great leader of the early church had latent racist tendencies that were based in his self righteous moralism and that God was not OK with this. It is tempting for Christians to simply see this as the story of how Jesus used Peter to respond to Cornelius’ spiritual longings without realizing that it is also the story of Jesus using Cornelius to confront Peter’s dark and broken religious impulses.

Cornelius, on the other hand, is a full on pagan. He is a Roman Soldier, which is everything that Peter as a good religious Hebrew had been raised to despise. But Cornelius seems to be a really good guy with a vague, unidentified spiritual hunger. He didn’t know why or who, but he knew that there was a personal force behind the universe that deserved reverence and could even be talked to.

But what this story teaches is that both Peter and Cornelius have flawed spiritual apparatus. The cool thing is that they receive the same prescription. The flawed Christian and the sincere seeker are both offered the gospel for their need. Acts 10 teaches that when Jesus’ invites us to follow him it is not an invitation to the morality of religion or to the vague spirituality of pluralism…but to something else entirely. The gospel

So we are just going to look at these two guys and see how Jesus skillfully subverts a couple common misconceptions about what he requires.

1. God Challenges Peter’s Self Righteous Religion

So Peter went to the roof where the Joppa view must have been breathtaking.

Ships were likely coming and going as he found a moment’s peace above the bustle of one of the area’s busiest maritime ports. And then 2 things happen (1) he gets hungry and (2) has a really wacky vision.

Ok, a brief aside…College life had a hugely successful Halloween party a couple of weeks ago.

There were a bunch of people who just walked in because it seemed like such a fun event. But I hear of one particular group who joined in but asked a number of people ‘Hey man, great party, but where’s the weed?’ I am glad to report that they did not find any and eventually they left. But I can’t help but feel like this passage has something to offer our friends the Halloween weed seekers. I might put it something like this:

‘Enjoy psychedelic visions and the munchies…try prayer.”

God essentially lays a buffet out before Peter full of all of the stuff he would least consider eating. These were all the foods that people like Peter considered themselves too good to eat and Peter was deferential because he was unexpectedly talking to God…but he held his ground. ‘Not me’ he says ‘I don’t do that kind of thing.’ Part of Peter’s self evaluation, part of criteria which he used to convince himself that he was a good and righteous person, was that he didn’t eat these kinds of foods. Other people did that sort of thing. I’m not like those pagans…I’m different. I’m better and the way I know it is that I don’t do the things they do.

It seems like our hearts so desperately long for significance that they latch onto almost any criteria to tell us we are special, valuable, good or righteous. And they usually do so by comparison because, as we all know:

“If everyone is special, then no one is.”

In Peter’s life (as is probably the case in most of ours) Religion was still the enemy of the gospel. You see, religion goes like this:

“I obey so I am accepted.” Where the gospel is the exact opposite: “I am accepted so I obey”

But that is the really radical thing about the gospel. God’s approval of us is based on the things HE has done. So any self-righteousness that I claim apart from the work of Christ is illicit. In the first half of this story we see that even though Peter was a Christian, fully committed to Jesus, God was exposing areas in his life in which he was still just a self-righteous, religious moralist…and not really tapping into the implications of the gospel. There were still corners of Peter’s heart where he was trying to earn God affection though his efforts.

This is one of the really astounding things about the gospel. The message of absolutely free and totally undeserved reconciliation with God through Jesus is as much for those of us who have made a commitment to follow Jesus as it is for those outside the church. There is a temptation to believe that God’s offer of free grace is a one time gift basket we get upon entering the Church, but after that, you better behave if you want him to love you. But the gospel never stops being the story of God’s undeserved grace towards you and we never stop needing it. It obliterates the value of the little rules we set up to make us feel better than other people. And it is still challenging to me years after my conversion. Shoot, Peter is THE prototypical Jesus follower, but he still has trouble getting a hold of the idea that God’s grace is offered 100% free. He still tries to earn God’s favor by performing morally.

What you need to see from the first half of Acts 10 is that the gospel isn’t just for those who don’t believe. It is still the power of God to set Christians free

Here is an example of how this has worked out in my life. When Amanda and I got married we decided to go without a television for a year to get the most out of being newly weds. We thought it would force us to take walks and communicate and come up with creative cheap dates. And it did all those things. I highly recommend it. We were enjoying ourselves so much that several years passed and it never occurred to us to get one. But somewhere along the line this behavior took a dark turn. It started to become part of my identity. At some point I started feeling self righteous and self assured and began feeling more spiritual than people who had TVs. My heart was so desperate for significance that it had taken something helpful and valuable and turned it into something ugly and dark…it had bought into religion. But any righteousness that I claim apart from the work of Christ is illicit. The solution is to let the gospel wriggle its way into the corners of your heart where you hold out those little idols of performance based significance and allow them to be replaced with the extravagant, undeserved love of Jesus.

The evidence that this has gone poorly in your heart is that you find yourself feeling all superior or condescending to some other sub-culture. For example, if you harbor substantial resentment or self righteousness towards, say ‘liberals’ or ‘agnostics’ or the homosexual community, or maybe another denomination or someone in the church, that is evidence that there is a corner of your where the gospel hasn’t fully taken hold yet.

So God Challenges Peter’s Self Righteous Religion and he challenges ours. He confronts the Christian and reminds him that he needs the gospel. But then he turns to the seeker who is not committed to the Christian story, and offers the same thing – the totally undeserved, totally free work of Jesus.

2. God Challenges Cornelius’ Moral Spiritualism

The first thing we notice about Cornelius is that he is a really remarkable guy. Caesarea is an important Roman port – so he was probably an accomplished soldier and leader. He was generous, kind, and seems like a devoutly spiritual guy.

Actually, I love the detail that we get here. We find out that he is ‘of the Italian regiment’ and that he is there ‘with his whole family’. It is as if the next line was:

‘And God was about to make him an offer he could not refuse.’

It makes you think, that maybe he looked a little like this:

Apparently he was not only moral and spiritual but disconcertingly handsome.

There are two really important things to notice about Cornelius: The persistence and sincerity of his search for God and the insufficiency of his religion.

The picture Luke is painting here of Cornelius is here is that of a really good guy. He is generous and noble and is a person of faith. I suspect that makes him a lot like many of you who are with us today…but there is still a fundamental incompleteness to his search.

The angel comes to Cornelius and essentially recites his resume back to him. You are a good guy, you pray, you are generous; on the whole you are a remarkable specimen of humanity. So what he says next is really unexpected to a reader steeped in religious pluralism. We would expect the angel to say something like “So we just wanted to say ‘keep up the good work’ and we’ll see you on the other side.” But he doesn’t. He tells this important, generous, prayerful Roman soldier to send for a Racist Hebrew fisherman and to listen carefully to what he has to say.

And here we find out something fundamental about Cornelius’ spiritual seeking. It’s the real deal. You see, he totally could have been a poser. It could have been totally possible that he was just spiritual because it was trendy or convenient (for example, helping him to deal with the Jewish population in Caesarea). And, honestly, I feel like a lot of spiritual seeking is like that these days. It is trendy. Being vaguely spiritual makes you appear cool and insightful. But Cornelius wasn’t just spiritual because it was convenient or trendy. He was really after God. This is the sign of legitimate spiritual vitality. Are you really after God?

"An open mind, like an open mouth, does have a purpose: and that is to close it upon something solid. Otherwise, it could end up like a city sewer, rejecting nothing."
G. K. Chesterton - Autobiography

Cornelius is still lacking something, and he knows it because he sends for Peter and asks him to explain the Jesus thing.

So Peter immediately takes the 30 mile trip to Caesarea and when he arrives Cornelius gathers his family and asks Peter ‘what do I need to know.”

Peter proceeds to summarizes Christianity into three basic ideas:

1. We are all the same – we are uniformly loved and beautiful in our reflection of the image of God yet also united in our common brokenness and desperate need of grace.

2. Jesus is Lord of ALL – a divine King who claims total authority and total allegiance – but the result of that allegiance is shalom – peace, with God and a path to the redemption of all forms of brokenness within you and between us

3. An invitation to reconciliation with God and others – as a result of accepting Christ’s Lordship and trusting in his death and resurrection on our behalf “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” (v43)

It is important to recognize that this passage rejects religious pluralism. Cornelius was not ‘ok’ just the way he was. Being a descent, generous and religious guy was not enough. God honored his earnest and sincere search with the message of the gospel. He needed to repent accept Jesus as king and appropriate the forgiveness made available through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus.


I think there are two really interesting implications in this text for the spiritually curious:

1. The main point of this story in its original context is that Cornelius did not have to adopt Peter’s cultural identity to follow Jesus. He did not have to accept Jewish culture to become a Christian. Now, I did not grow up in the Christian sub-culture so let me just say what many of you may be thinking…some of the stuff Christians do is freeking weird. I get it. But you do not have to adopt the Christian sub-culture to become a Christian. Here is the good news, you do not have to give up your environmentalism, your feminism or become a Republican. But here is the bad news that is actually great news: you will have to give up the feelings of value and moral superiority you felt by accepting these things. They may be true and worth pursuing, and if they are they will be even more if you are a Christian, but they do not make you good or valuable. Only Jesus does that.

2. Are you willing to accept a message from God even if he uses a deeply flawed messenger? Cornelius, for all his searching, had to do the surprising and humbling thing and learn truth from a racist, Hebrew fisherman. You will probably also find substantial flaws in the people you have heard speak about Jesus, be they College life students or speakers, maybe me in particular….but maybe God is answering your search in the same way he responded to Cornelius…by asking "are you willing to hear the incredible message of total freedom from your self righteousness from a flawed, self righteous, individual who is still in the midst of undergoing that transition themselves?"

And another cool thing about this text is that God will use you to challenge us. Keller “Isn’t it great to be part of a faith where not only the (Christian) converts the converts but the convert converts the (Christian)…If you get involved with people very different than you culturally, they will show you parts of your life where the gospel has not come.”
Which leads me, very briefly, to the last thing I want to mention about this passage.

3. God Challenges Homogeneous Christianity

So, I cut most of this point. I am going to talk much more about this when we look at the church in Antioch next quarter, but I at least have to mention it. Here is the interesting thing about the gospel. By challenging the stuff that we hold on to that makes us feel superior to those around us, God’s community becomes a really promising place to find unity in really dramatic diversity. This turns out to be one of the major themes of this passage as well as the book of Acts. John Stott says:

“It is difficult for us to grasp the impassable gulf which yawned in those days between the Jews on the one hand and the Gentiles on the other.” -Stott

But we begin to see that God’s hope for the Church is that we would actively subvert the bitterest, most deeply held cultural divisions that plague the surrounding society.

So this passage has something for both groups of people we hope come to CL. It tells the Christians to get over themselves…to recognize that their status is based totally on their acceptance of God’s free grace and not on the little rules we make to make ourselves feel better than those around us. And it says to those of you who are sincerely and earnestly seeking the truth, that God is really bad at hiding, he will be found by the earnest, sincere seeker…but that being “a good person” and/or spiritual is not enough. You need to give yourself to Jesus as your leader and appropriate the forgiveness that he made possible through the cross. And this radical message gives us unparalleled resources to transcend some of our culture’s most deeply held social divisions.

‘A Dangerous Sense of Holiness’: The Story of Ananias and Sapphira

(The Death of Sapphira - by Amanda Gibson)

Acts 5: 1-11

So, as you may have already noticed, tonight we are going to tackle what many consider the most difficult passage in Acts. In chapter 5 a decidedly inspiring narrative takes what seems like an inexplicably dark turn. Since we are only doing ~22 talks in Acts, we could have easily skipped it. Most do, because, frankly, on the face of it, this is, at best a difficult text and, at worst, an embarrassing text. On the other hand, skeptics love texts like this. Take for example, the guy who runs the ‘Brick Testament’ site a web page clearly dedicated to highlighting the sex, violence, and what he sees as potentially embarrassing texts in the Bible in an attempt to undermine its authority.

You can bet he won’t overlook this text. So Dan and I decided that (a) If we skipped it we’d be total ‘chicken bleep’ and (b) it is in the Bible for a reason and, like the rest of Holy Scripture and the dramatic story of the church, has theological and practical implications for our lives.

Before we deal with this passage, I want to increase the degree of difficulty, and introduce a very similar passage from the Hebrew Scriptures.

1David again brought together out of Israel chosen men, thirty thousand in all. 2 He and all his men set out from Baalah of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the Name, the name of the LORD Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim that are on the ark. 3 They set the ark of God on a new cart and brought it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the new cart 4 with the ark of God on it, and Ahio was walking in front of it. 5 David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the LORD, with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals.

6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.

8 Then David was angry because the LORD's wrath had broken out against Uzzah, and to this day that place is called Perez Uzzah.

9 David was afraid of the LORD that day and said, "How can the ark of the LORD ever come to me?" 10 He was not willing to take the ark of the LORD to be with him in the City of David. Instead, he took it aside to the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite.
2 Samuel 6

There are a couple of things that these passages (and a couple others like them) have in common. They bother us. They strike us as arbitrary and disproportionate. God’s action seems completely out of proportion to the offense. The Bible is full of people who have done horrible things and seem to get away with it. David nails Bathsheba and then murders her husband when she turns up pregnant but Uzzah gets obliterated for steadying the ark. In the first century people across the Roman Empire are watching slaves kill each other for fun but A&S get snuffed out for telling a white lie during an act of generosity.

We strain to understand what it was that was so bad that Uzzah, Anaias and Sapphira did that deserved this unusually severe punishment. I am going to argue that that is precisely the wrong question. But first, lets look at where we are going.

First I am going to make a few general observations about the text, that I feel are just begging to be made, but then, I am going to try to explain these strange texts by taking a step back and looking at 2 contexts:

1. The Immediate Contexts: Good Times and Momentum for God’s People
2. The Larger Context: Human Brokenness and a Just God

First, let’s just make a few preliminary observations about these texts.

1. The Myth of Testament Specific Deities

People sometimes like to say, in an effort to undermine the plausibility of the Christian worldview, that the god of the OT and the NT are dramatically different deities. The OT god is a god of wrath and the NT god is a god of love. The most creative take I have heard on this is that: ‘The reason that 500 years elapse between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT is because god went to counseling to learn how to handle his anger issues.

This may sound wise or clever but it is really just evidence that the individual hasn’t spent much time with the text. The God of the Bible is one of dangerous holiness on one hand and ridiculously extravagant grace on the other. The story of A&S demonstrates that the wrath that proceeds from the purity of his justice arises in both testaments. Jesus himself talks about hell more than anyone else in the Bible. Conversely, the OT overflows with declarations of God’s care and love and grace and mercy:

Check out these verses.

16 On that day they will say to Jerusalem,
"Do not fear, O Zion;
do not let your hands hang limp.

17 The LORD your God is with you,
he is mighty to save.
He will take great delight in you,
he will quiet you with his love,
he will rejoice over you with singing."

18 "The sorrows for the appointed feasts
I will remove from you;
they are a burden and a reproach to you. Zeph 3:16-18

or

I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?' Ez 10:11

Or even one of the darkest books in the whole OT, Hoseah ends like this:

1 Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God.

Your sins have been your downfall!

2 Take words with you and return to the LORD.

Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously,

that we may offer the fruit of our lips.

3 Assyria cannot save us; we will not mount war-horses.

We will never again say 'Our gods' to what our own hands have made,

for in you the fatherless find compassion."

4 "I will heal their waywardness and love them freely,

for my anger has turned away from them.

5 I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily.

Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots;
6 his young shoots will grow.

His splendor will be like an olive tree,

his fragrance like a cedar of Lebanon.

7 Men will dwell again in his shade.

He will flourish like the grain.

He will blossom like a vine, and his fame

will be like the wine from Lebanon. Hosea 14

2. Difficult passage argues for the veracity of the text

The portions of the text that we find potentially embarrassing are some of the best evidence for its historical reliability. It would have been pretty easy for Luke to leave this story out and, essentially say, the early church was such an evidence of the resurrection that everyone loved each other and no one lied as if it were the embodiment of a poorly written Nickleback song). But after he describes the compelling closeness of the early church in chapter 2, a miraculous healing in chapter 3, and the ridiculous generosity in chapter 4, he essentially says in chapter 5, ‘but not everything was great.’ Potentially embarrassing texts demonstrate the historicity of the text and establish Luke’s historical street cred.

3. Lying is a Reality Fail

Second, NT Wright says that this passage “puts down a very clear marker about lying…[2]Lying is, ultimately, a way of declaring that we don’t like the world the way it is and we will pretend that it is somehow more the way we want it to be.” Essentially, lying is a reality fail, and a demonstration that me, and what someone else thinks of me is more important than the fabric of reality.

4. Neither of these acts are as Innocent as they Seem

Before I argue that these acts are not judged because they are particularly wicked, we also have to establish that neither of these events are as innocent as they seem. In the Acts passage, they were not under compulsion to give. So why did they lie. They were using God and his community. They were using God to build their reputation. Their actions made it obvious they didn’t know who they were dealing with.

And in the Samuel passage, the Ark is being carted around carelessly instead of the clear Levitical command that it should be carefully carried wherever it goes. There is a sense in which the same thing is going on. David is going to use the Ark to demonstrate to everyone how God is on his side. He is going to use God to build his reputation. And at the end of the passage David is pissed because he knows that Uzzah was collateral damage of his own triumphalism. Both these stories are acconts of someone wh belongs to God, using God for his or her own ends. This makes God angry. But, on the other hand, it is probobly something I do every day...and I'm still breathing.

Fundamentally, I think it is a mistake to look for something especially bad that the characters in these stories did to deserve a particularly hard treatment from God. It is a mistake to read these passages and say, well I want to avoid those particular actions or God will come down especially hard on me. These events need to be understood in the context of the stories being told and in the context of the greater story of Scripture to make sense.

First - The Immediate Contexts: Good Times and Momentum for God’s People

I think it is really helpful, in trying to understand these passages, to ask what similarities are their in their historical contexts. We find that both of these events happen at the inception of a new beginning for God’s people when things are going particularly well.

In 2 Samuel 5 David is made king after decades of an ineffective leader who, at the end of his life was certifiably insane. It is a time of optimism and hope. Everyone is psyched. David immediately wins two of the most important victories in Israel’s history. First he wins back Jerusalem from the Jebusites and then he wins back the Ark of the covenant from the Philistines. And that is the context of 2 Samuel 6. After years of humiliation and national disgrace, the Hebrews suddenly had a charismatic young leader, they were back in their home city and the most important symbol of their corporate worship had been recovered. It was a very good time. They probably felt indestructible and certainly believed that God was unreservedly on their side. So David ignored the Levitical law that the Ark should only be carried by people and never be touched. He carelessly threw the thing up in a cart and headed to Jerusalem, looking very much forward to the hero’s welcome awaited him.

Similarly, the first weeks of the fledgling church are going very well. You are going to see in the coming months that hard times and broken leaders are going to take their toll on the new community of Jesus’ people in the years that follow, but so far, there are thousands of new believers, they are all caring for each other, miracles seem to be everywhere, people are getting healed, new believers from diverse backgrounds are getting along and caring for each other’s physical needs…things are going very well.

Both of these events occur when things are going particularly well for the people of God.

Both of these events happen at the beginning[3] of a new chapter in the story of the people of God. It seems like you might expect this kind of extreme punitive action from God when things were going particularly poorly…when people were turning away from God and chasing idols (which is most of the time in the Bible and in our lives since each of our hearts is a compulsive little idol maker). But these events happen just as things are starting to go very well. These events happen at the beginning of the rare very good chapters of the story of God’s people.

So why do the authors include these stories?
The story of Ananias and Sapphira laces the triumphal story of the success and expansion of the early church with a dangerous sense of holiness[4]. It reminds them of who they are representing and that he will not be used. It appears that God feels that in the midst of these exciting times, his people need to be reminded, in the words of CS Lewis, that 'he is good, but he is not safe.' Particularly in good times, when God is doing remarkable things in his communities, he will act in extraordinary ways to establish a dangerous sense of his holiness which provides his people with perspective and humility.

So the imidiate context gives us clues to what this passage is trying to teach...but we are still not quite there yet. To really get a hold of it, we need to ask 'how does this story fit in with the bigger themes of Scripture?'

Second - The Larger Context: Human Brokenness and a Just God

On the whole, the picture of God we get in the scriptures is of unnatural and extravagant patience. He says again and again that he is not quick to anger. He pleads with those who are oppressing the poor and worshiping idols to turn from their wickedness.

It can cause us to forget what it means that he is the cosmic source of pure Justice. But from time to time in the Biblical text we are startled to encounter actual, pure, unmitigated, justice face to face and it is horrifying. Lots of people like to talk about justice. We talk about economic justice, environmental justice, justice for the poor, justice for the oppressed. We cry out to God and political leaders for justice…for all to be set right…for evil at last to be obliterated…not realizing that total pure justice would, ultimately obliterate us too.

One of the most common questions skeptics and Christians alike will ask as they probe Christianity’s credibility: How could a just God allow evil?

Calvin and Hobbes: 'It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.'

In other words, why doesn't God just do something about bad people.

I do not mean to minimize this question. It is an important one with difficult complex answers. But what the questioners usually seem to miss, is that if God was to make a total end of evil in the world, he would not only make an end of the evils that offend our moral sensibilities but those we ourselves propagate. MY indifference to the poor. MY addictions. MY dark heart.

God does not put an end to bad people because I am bad people...and so are you.

And so here is my Thesis (which I have counterintuitively put at the end of my talk): The interesting thing about this passage is not that A&S were destroyed for their rebellion, it is that we aren't .

Mark Driscoll tells a story about an exchange he had in his early days pastoring. He said:

“one night the church phone rang at some godforsaken hour when I’m not even a Christian, like 3 am. I answered it in a stupor, and on the other line was some college guy who was crying. I asked him what was wrong, and he said it was an emergency and he really needed to talk to me. Trying to muster up my inner pastor, I sat down and tried to pretend I was concerned. I asked him what was wrong and he rambled for a while about nothing, which usually means that a guy has sinned and is wasting time with dumb chit chat because he’s ashamed to just get to the point and confess. So I interrupted him blurting out, “It’s 3 am, so stop jerking me around. What have you done?”
“I masturbated,” he said.
“That’s it?” I said.
“Yes,” he replied. “Tonight I watched a porno and masturbated.”
“Is the porno over? I asked.
“Yes,” he said.
“Was it a good porno?” I asked.
He did not reply.
“Well you’ve already watched the whole porno and tugged your tool, so what am I supposed to do?” I asked.
“I don’t know,” he said. “You are my pastor, so I thought that maybe you could pray for me.”
To be honest, I did not want to pray, so I just said the first thing that came to mind. “Jesus, thank you for not killing him for being a pervert. Amen.” I prayed.
“Alright, well you should sleep good now, so go to bed and don’t call me again tonight because I’m sleeping and you are making me angry,” I said.
“Well what am I supposed to do now?” he asked.
“You need to stop watching porno and crying like a baby afterward and grow up man…A naked lady is good to look at, so get a job, and get a wife, and ask her to get naked, and look at her instead. Alright?” I said.
“Alright. Thanks Pastor Mark,” he said as I hung up.

What reminded me of this story was Mark’s prayer, which, may have been pastorally crass but was theologically perfect. We grow so accustomed to God’s longsuffering that we began to presume upon it. And so at the beginning of these two movements, when things were going well and people were tempted to use God for their own purposes, he opened a small, temporary window to his holy justice to demonstrate what the unmitigated force of that pure justice will do to our sick hearts that are, at best, filled with mixed intentions. For the long term good of the community he let loose what he generally restrains.

I have one more illustration before I wrap up. This is from Razor, which is part of the recent Batlestar Galactica series on Syfy (which, incidentally, was way better than anyone could have predicted). Razor was a side project, a film made between seasons 2 and 3, mostly with auxiliary characters. It told the story of a young military woman who had been involved in shooting civilians and carried that guilt through the entire film. In the end she sacrifices herself for the fleet leading to these exchanges:

Battlestar Galactica clip –


Starbuck: 'Maybe she had it coming.'

Apolo: 'We've all got it coming.’

One of the great empirical realities of our world is that injustice is rampant out there. And whether or not you are a Christian, that should break your heart and we need to be mustering as much strength and as many resources as we can to fight injustice in as many forms as we encounter it. But what this passage, and others like it illustrate, is one of the primary things that the Bible teaches. Injustice isn’t just out there, it is also in here. The first thing you have to understand about the gospel is this. There is a dark shadow over each of our hearts. ‘We've all got it coming.’

In the end God WILL eradicate evil and bring justice and restore the world to full beauty and wholeness. He will do the very thing that we have always wanted him to do. The irony is that we were part of the problem all along. In order to set the world right he will have to come against each one of us and our dark hearts.

The gist of the gospel is that because of the life death and resurrection of Jesus, God has made a way that a way that he can come against the darkness in our hearts, while we ourselves are spared.

The gospel tells the story that because of the events of good Friday and Easter, God has transferred our penalty onto himself. We can be welcomed into his presence and his eternal realm, because through the life, death and resurrection of Christ he has made a way to obliterate the dark injustice that plagues our hearts as it plagues every other nook and crany of our world, without obliterating us. This is the gospel. ‘We all have it coming.’ But as Peter said just days before the events of this passage, we can escape our eventual confrontation with God’s unmitigated and consuming justice through faith in God’s solution…by accepting the work of Christ and submitting to him as our new leader. In the words of Acts: “With many other words he warned them and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation’…Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins.”

Over the course of this year we are going to get a lot of important things out of the book of acts. We are going to see that God cares about the city and that he cares about the poor and that he pushes his people to challenge ethnic and social barriers, and that the work of his Spirit gives us unexpected spiritual resources…but at the heart of his community then and now is a people who recognize we are no better than anyone else because God is against the persistent stain of injustice in our hearts but has accepted us through his grace.
__________________________
[1] A quote from NT Wright – for a while, the working title for this talk was: ‘we all have it coming’
[2] Wright also says that lying is ‘the opposite of the gift of tongues. Instead of allowing God’s spirit to have free reign through our faculties, so that we praise God’s spirit to have free reign through our faculties…we not only hold heaven and earth apart; we twist each itself, so that it serves our own interests.”
[3] Most commentators (Boyce, Stott, ) see this as the key interpretive context of the story, but I most quote Bruce.
[4] NT Wright Acts for Everyone Volume 1

You are not Yourself by Yourself: Community in the Early Church

Acts 2: 38-47

Acts 4: 32-35

This has been a fun quarter. As some of you know I am on campus more. I turned in my dissertation to my committee for evaluation, and so I am taking the opportunity to bang out some pre-recs for another degree I have my eye on…so I am in freshman bio 2 and 3. Dan has enjoyed my transition from PhD candidate to intro bio student and taken the opportunity to nick name me Benjamin button.

But one of the cool things is that there are no fewer than 7 college lifers in my Bio 2B class. We have Professor Strong for this class who is off the hook. He is passionate and hilarious…often of the unintentional variety. We giggle all the way through that class. In our third class, he put up this slide to talk about latitudinal biodiversity gradients and then told us an anecdote. He said he had a girlfriend in college who had one of these…called a bush baby. The first time he went over to her house, it cautiously greeted him and when he sat on the couch, the bush baby came over, climbed up on his head and proceeded to urinate into its hand – rubbing the collected pea behind professor strong’s ears…thus initiating him into the social group. Kiho flashed that warm but devious grin of his and said, without missing a beat, ‘Cool, a new College Life ice breaker.’

I thought the anecdote marginally related, because today we are going to be talking about community. Jesus and the early church simply assumed that the life of faith would be something done in community…but this turns out to be a radically counter cultural assertion in our particular cultural moment. Let me try to illustrate this with a couple of quotes:

“I have my own spiritual thing, but am not part of an organized religion. I think religion is very special and individual to each person.” - Jessica Alba

“I think I find more strength in faith than I do in organized religion.” - Jon Bon Jovi

“I'm not into organized religion. I'm into believing in a higher source of creation, realizing we're all just part of nature.” -Neil Young

"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business. I live by the golden rule: Treat others as you'd want them to treat you." - Jesse Ventura

“I believe in a higher being. You can call it what you want. But…I don’t believe in organized religion.” - John Mellencamp

"I don't belong to any organized religion of such, but I'd like to believe in a higher power." James Iha -guitarist for Smashing Pumpkins

“I have always been a spiritual person, but I’ve never really subscribed to an organized religion…”
- Nick Harmer bassist for Death Cab for Cutie

“I don't want to be restricted how I can go about my religion and my life. And I just, again, want to know what's going to make me happy. So I think that (religion is) still part of me, it always will be, but I might not be as public about it.” - NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon

“I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the teachings of Jesus, but I am suspicious of organized religion.”
- Madonna,

Um, anytime you can get NASCAR dude and Madonna to agree about something, you know that that think is pretty deeply ingrained in our cultural moment. And it is not just platitude spouting celebrities.

Three weeks ago The Economist (a decidedly high brow[1] periodical) made the case that “something people badly want (is) a way to acknowledge faith can be taken seriously as a response to deep human yearnings without needing to subscribe to the formality of organized belief.”[2]

Honestly, this is one of my little pet peeves…when someone says something like this, usually taking the form of “I’m not into organized religion but I am a very spiritual person” they usually think they are being profound or original or at least clever. I’d just like to deconstruct that for a minute. This is about the most clichéd, tired, derivative view of spirituality you can have in our culture. It isn’t rebellious or clever, it is tired and trite. I mean, if you are going to make a comment as inane as this, at least do something unique with it, like…this one I enjoyed:

“I usually lump organized religion, organized labor, and organized crime together. The Mafia gets points for having the best restaurants.” ~Dave Beard

But this obviously antipathy against ‘organized religion’ is a deeply and widely held sentiment in our culture, and it is not without an element of truth or at least of resonance. Anything this widely believed probably has an element of truth to it. Clichés are usually clichés for a reason. And I agree that the human religious impulse is mostly a dark and broken impulse and that religion is, in many cases, is as far away from the message of Jesus as hedonism is. I also think the church has a relatively poor record or representing Jesus.

Tim Keller says that ‘all of the arguments against the existence of God are pop guns of doubt compared to…‘If Christ is so great why is the church the way it is?’…There is nothing that can create doubt like that.’ I am going to touch on this just a little bit today, but it is not my topic. I have given whole talks on this question before, as has Keller and Os Guiness, so if this is a significant problem for you, I have thrown the mp3s of all three talks onto a few CD’s and you can get them after the talk.

But something else strikes me about these quotes. Let me go with one more that particularly brings this out.

“I don’t necessarily believe in organized religion. I love my God, my higher power, but it is mine and mine alone, and I create my connection, and I decide how my connection is going to be.” –Will Smith

Now, to be fair, I love Will Smith. He is the biggest movie star in the English speaking world, 7 pounds was probably the best studio film to come out last year, by all accounts a he is descent family man, and dude is disconcertingly handsome…I mean, that is a beautiful specimen of humanity…and I’ve literally grown up with him. Seriously, the first album I ever owned was ‘I’m the DJ, He’s the rapper’ back when no one knew his real name.

But look at that quote again. Of the 36 words in it the words I, my or mine make up 9 of them. That is 25%. And that, I think, gets at the heart of contemporary spirituality. The foundational tenet of contemporary god talk - the litmus of contemporary spiritual ‘orthodoxy’ if you will - is ‘individuality’.

But tonight we are going to look at two of my favorite passages in the whole Bible. The reason I love these passage is that they describes a shocking vision of Christian community. On the one hand, it pitches Jesus-following as irreducibly corporate, something that can only done in tight connection with others. But on the other hand, it paints a picture of ‘organized religion,’ if you will that is so startlingly foreign from the one-dimensional caricature posited and reiterated by these quotes. Let me suggest, as my thesis, that the appropriate response to the evils and ills of ‘organized religion’ is not individualized spirituality but Biblical community.

The talk will divide into 2 parts:

I. The Importance of Community

-I am going to try to deconstruct the idea that following Jesus is something you can do mostly on your own, particularly in college. I will make the case that Christianity is irreducibly corporate and that, far from being a liability, this is one of its most beautiful and helpful features of this world view…despite being entirely counter-cultural.

II. The Elements of Community

-Then we will look at 4 elements of community lifted directly from the account of the earliest church and try to think a little bit about how these could play out in our little community

Essentially I am going to try to answer these two questions

Why is the Church? What is the Church? So let’s dig into it.

I. The Importance of Community

Here is the thing. It is definitionally impossible to follow Jesus by yourself. You can try it. You can pray and read the Bible and try to ‘love your neighbor’ by yourself…and you can have some measure of ‘success’ in achieving these objectives…but as soon as you try to do it alone it is, by definition, not following Jesus. It is something else. Authentic Jesus following can only be done with other people trying to do the same. It is irreducibly corporate.

Look at the text. Verse 2:44 ‘All the believers were together’ and then again in 2:46 ‘they continued to meet together.’ Tim Keller said that these passages and others give the impression that they ‘met together relentlessly’ that ‘they couldn’t seem to get enough of each other.’ The early Christians appear to have an insatiable appetite for being with each other. From the very beginning, normative Jesus following was done together – Christianity can only be done in community.

My sophomore year in HS I took a sculpture class. Art classes weren’t like other classes in High School because you got to talk, the radio was on, it was all very informal. And every art class I ever took worked the same way. The three or four popular seniors in the class would talk about their sexual exploits, either real or imagined, and the rest of us hung on their every word. I wasn’t a Christian yet, and not having experiences to add, I listened attentively. Our teacher Mr. Geller mostly stayed out of it. But I remember one day one of the guys admitted that over the weekend he fell asleep while having sex. This was more than Mr. Geller could bear and he finally jumped in. He said, ‘I’m sorry, if you are falling asleep during sex, you are just not doing it right.’[3]

This story came to mind when I read this passage. It seems to me that if you have the impulse to make your devotion to Jesus a private matter…if you find a personal, individual experience of God more compelling or fulfilling than a corporate, community experience of God…then you just aren’t doing it right. Normative Christianity is typified by people who can’t get enough of each other. If that doesn’t describe your experience, I suspect you are not doing it right.

I really like what Eugene Peterson has to say about this “I often found myself preferring the company of people outside my congregation, men and women who did not follow Jesus. Or worse, preferring the company of my sovereign self. But I soon found that my preferences were honored by neither Scripture nor Jesus. I did not come by the conviction easily, but finally there is not getting around it: there can be no maturity in the spiritual life, no obedience in following Jesus, no wholeness in the Christian life apart form an immersion and embrace of community. I am not myself by myself.” ­–Eugene Peterson – Christ Plays in 10,000 Places[4]

Peterson asserts that to be human is to need other people…that at some level we do not fundamentally experience our fullest personhood when we are alone – but when we are in community. But Christianity in particular is irreducibly for a couple of reasons. Let me briefly pitch 3 theological reasons why Christianity is fundamentally a community experience:

1. At the center of Christianity is an admission of need and incompleteness, we require connection to other Christians.

2. Christianity is irreducibly corporate because God is. At the heart of the Christian faith is one God, who is himself, a community. The Trinity is not just some sort of abstract theological concept, it, among other things, demonstrates that if a God who is fundamentally corporate, creates us in his image. It would be really striking if a God like this created us for a private, individual experience of him. (Pinnoch – the dance)[5]

3. The Beauty is in the mess. This passage seems to assert that while Christian conversion is individual it is only authentic if it leads you into community – which is sure to get messy. Think about the scene here. There were 3,000 brand new Christians joined the community that day. How many crass hypocrites did that include? How many annoying or difficult people? How many with did that include who had serious coolness deficits? Running into difficult people in the church is not evidence that it is broken…it is evidence that it is fulfilling its purpose. The only prerequisite to join the Church is to look to Jesus and say, ‘I am a total mess and can’t fix this myself.’ You put a bunch of people like that together and it WILL get messy. But the mess of Christian community (in addition to its joys) is one of the tools God uses to form us.

This is one of the reasons why repentance and forgiveness are so central to Jesus’ teaching? Because we are broken people slowly healing – it just so happens that the church disproportionately attracts those that are more broken, so it tends to be a messy place that can only be navigated with repentance and forgiveness. After I had been a Christian a couple years, I had a pastor tell me ‘Stan, I don’t think you love the church. I think you love the idea of the Church.’ (as an aside – same for marriage – Derik Webb – every love song ‘you are great and I am great and when we get together it is great’ – every time I write a love song ‘I am a broken mess of a person and you are a broken mess of a person but I’m committed to this thing and by God’s grace we are getting by’)[6]

Honestly, I think people like individualized spirituality because not getting into the lives of other people and not letting them into our most intimate space and ideas means that we don’t really need to get into the difficult business of repentance and forgiveness.

But repentance and forgiveness are not optional add ons to the Christian life. They are central. Biblical community not only provides us with opportunities to experience encouragement but also serves as the ‘lab’ for our ‘book learning’ on repentance and forgiveness. Christianity is a lab class. It is irreducibly corporate. If you are doing it alone, you are just not doing it right. It is actually, probably, something else entirely.

II. The Elements of Community

So in addition to the basic principal that they ‘were together’, there are at least a dozen things we could draw from these passages to help us think about what normative Christian community should look like. We could teach for a whole quarter just on the elements of community from these passages and I’m convinced that it would be a pretty good series. For, example, James Boyce points out that, according to this passage, the early church was an urban, multi-ethnic mega church. Remember who responded to the message in chapter 2:

9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 Cretans and Arabs

The urban and multi-ethnic nature of the church become major themes in the Book of Acts and I am going to focus on them in future messages – particularly when I talk about Cornelius and the Church in Antioch at the end of this quarter and the beginning of winter quarter - but for now, lets select 4 “elements” of the early Church that could help inform our experience of Christian community.

1. A Learning, Studying Community

It was a learning, studying community. The first thing Luke mentions to describe this new group of Jesus followers is that they were intellectually engaged. Acts 2:42 “They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching.”

Now, last week Dan made the case that the early church was typified by a connection and dependence on the Spirit…and I 100% agree. If the work of the Spirit isn’t the main theme of the book of Acts, it is in the top 3. So it seems counter-intuitive that study would be the first mark of such a spirit filled community. But the life of the Spirit and the life of the mind are not competitive but symbiotic. Truth, particularly God’s self disclosure as reveled through the Scriptures, is the catalyst of the Spirit’s activities. Their experiences were grounded in understanding. They took seriously the words of Jesus that the first commandment was to love Jesus with all your ‘Mind, heart, soul and strength.’

My wife spent a semester of undergrad in Texas. She visited churches there where, I kid you not, parishioners checked their concealed fire arms in at the door. The church has been accused of doing the same thing with our brains…and the accusation is not without basis. But we will not ask you to do that here because clearly normative Christian community was intellectually engaged. Deciding how you are going to respond to Jesus is too important a decision to base on a vague feeling, intuition or emotion. You need information. The earliest Christian community was a learning, studying community.

2. A Multi-Scale Community

Second, the earliest Church was a multi-scale community. Look with me at 2:46

46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,

Their organizational structure included large group meetings where they all met together, formal[7] small group gatherings for prayer and worship and informal meals together. We would really encourage you to do the same during your time here at UCD. The structure of CL or any other of the major college ministries where we have a large group meetings, formal small groups and impromptu times or meals together[8] is not an arbitrary organizational structure but actually has Biblical precedent. We would really encourage you to take advantage of each of these opportunities.

3. A Ridiculously Generous Community

Third, a mark of vibrant Christian community is ridiculously counter-culturally generosity. This is the most obvious theme of the passages[9]…and in many ways, the most shocking theme.

2:44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

4:32No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.

4:34There were no needy persons among them[10]. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

First, I’d just like to point out that this is exceptionally ‘organized religion’ and in Chapter 6 it gets even more organized as the apostles delegate tasks like caring for the socially and economically helpless to what essentially amounts to a sub-committee. But I suspect that many of those who object to ‘organized religion’ would be intrigued by a community like this. On the whole, I don’t think the objection is really to ‘organized[11]’ religion at all, but to irrelevant religion.

So we see in the passage that there is a fundamental difference between ‘hanging out’ and ‘community.’ NT Wright says in his commentary on these verses that Christian ‘fellowship is more than friendship but not less.’ It involves a component of taking material responsibility for each other. Biblical community is ridiculously, counter-culturally generous.[12]

4. An Externally Focused Community

Finally, despite their obvious affection for each other and their discipline of gathering together they remained externally focused. Their primary purpose for existing was not for themselves.

The passage says in 2:46 – ‘they the enjoyed ‘the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.’

It would have been easy for them to say, ‘Whoa now. We just experienced a one day growth rate of 2500%, let’s pack it in a little bit and focus on our personal growth. But while the first church couldn’t seem to get enough of each other, they still managed to stay engaged in the larger community and did life together in such a way that others were not only welcome but coming. They interacted with their city in positive ways for the good of all its inhabitants and maintained enough significant relationships outside of the Christian community that

This is the idea behind the growth group kingdom projects. Christian community does not exist only for the good of its members but to be a genuine help and joy to their community.

Let me wrap up with a final story. My first day of undergrad, before my Mom and Dad packed up the Windstar and drove the 200 miles to the school we had chosen, I woke up at 4:30 in the morning and could not go back to sleep. So I got up. It was a foggy, cool, September morning in Northern NY. I was a brand new Christian. Seriously, like 18 months earlier I had been an atheist…though not a particularly good one, since I couldn’t seem to keep myself from praying. Anyway, I had wanted to go to a Christian college but couldn’t afford it. I was, honestly, nervous about what college would do to my new faith. I had recently purchased the NT on tape and so I popped Acts into my walkman. A walkman, for those of you who don’t know is this strange device that we used to put these things called cassettes into and which stored audio information on, I kid you not, strips of magnetic tape…and sound would come out through these ear pieces that were held to your head with a metal band.

Anyway, I went for a long walk in that early morning fog listening to the story of the first days of Christianity. As I listened to the story of the early church unfold in a world hostile to their worldview and in the face of huge uncertainty, I began to get a sense that God was going to see me through it. But he wasn’t going to just see ME through it. He was going to see US through it. I didn’t know who ‘us’ was yet…but God’s plan for me at college was to be part of an us…and let me tell you, almost fifteen years later, I am still extremely close with them. You need to find yourself an ‘us’ to follow Jesus with during your years at UCD. You may not know them yet, but I guarantee you that if you find them, they will be among the closest friends of your life and will be directly responsible for how much ground you gain or loose spiritually during your years here.

I have said it before and will say it again – If you spend these 4 years on the margins of Christian community you are RIPPING YOURSELF OFF. Join a Christian fellowship and stick with it. I don’t care which one it is. IV, Crew, or, College Life. More important than which one you choose is that you dive into it and make it a home. You are only in college for a few years, so don’t waste time bouncing between them.

Connect yourself to a community of Christians that is a vibrant studying and learning community, that experiences Christianity as a multi-scale phenomena (go to a large group meeting, join a small group, hang out regularly with a few close Christian friends), that is counter-culturally generous, but always keeps in mind that Christian community exists for those outside of it. If you have had trouble making connections, come on the retreat coming up. Because Christianity is irreducibly corporate and the solution to organized religion is not individual spirituality but vibrant, dynamic, Biblical community.

__________________________
[1] Though far too self important and self assured.
[2] History of Christianity: The Greatest Story or the Trickiest? September 19th, 2009 p95
[3] Now, before I tell you what I think this little anecdote has to do with Acts 2 and 4, I have to take a brief aside. One of the things I love about this story is that it deconstructs the myth that unmarried sex is exciting and fun and married sex is dull and passionless. What you have is a man who has been married for decades, for whom sex has been an effective tool to build lasting intimacy and closeness with a life long partner telling another guy who is essentially just using it for cheap thrills and bragging rights that his experience of the thing is diminished. And let me just say, that we are going to talk more about this. Dan and I have set aside the first 3 weeks of next quarter for a series on sexuality and relationships.
[4] I also loved this quote in that chapter: “People can think correctly and behave rightly and worship politely and still live badly – live anemically, live individualistically self enclosed lives, live bored and insipid and trivial lives.” Christ Plays in 10,000 Places
[5] As Keller has quoted in his talk on Contextualization- we were deformed through community, it only makes sense that restoration would come partly through the context of a community.”
[6] Let me give you one more quote to round out the point. “The Church offers a way forward beyond mere individualism, beyond mere organization. It is a voluntary community of those who have caught some glimmering of what God means in Christ and how Christ unites all who accept the Accepter. Thus in the Church, at its best, there is both the flowering of individuality and also the sense of belonging, of being accepted, of forgiving, of being forgiven, of loving and being loved.” – Chad Walsh
[7] ‘the breaking of bread and the prayers’ – as contemporary evangelicals we read this and we think of eating together and praying for each other’s needs – but that is an anachronism – it probably is an early form of the Lord’s supper and a liturgy of sorts – there are formal and informal aspects to the community life of the early church – but the breaking bread in v 46
[8] Keller - “You are who you eat with.”
[9] Luke gives more attention than any of the other gospel authors to Jesus’ teachings on money and the poor – it is not surprising, therefore, that he would be intrigued by the economic dimension of the early Christian community
[10] No one in need – ref to Deut 15:4 & 11 (direct quote from the LXX)
[11] The alternative to ‘organized religion’ doesn’t have to be disorganized religion. Biblical community is and was ‘organized’ but was still alive and dynamic. Notice that even in the earliest moments, even in its most organic form, the church is a centralized enterprise – not individual to individual but individualàchurchàindividual. There is a centralized administration of the funds – presumably to protect the community from scams – but also so that assistance came not from the individual but from the community. It is in this context that the verse in 1Timothy makes sense about getting the unemployed jobs so they have money to care for the needs of other. It appears that one of the roles of the early church leadership was to move people from recipient status to giving status.
[12] While the issue of generosity makes us think first (and rightly so) about money – I think it is a fair question to ask ‘What is the scarcest resource for UCD students?’ I suspect it would either be time or GPA. I think it is an important question for Christian students to ask, would God call me to sacrifice some time or GPA on someone else’s behalf.

5 Myths About Marriage

(Note: This was not so much a formal 'talk' as a 'campfire chat' that I gave at the college life Men's ministry campout. There is an Mp3 over on the mp3 page.)

So when Cory approached Dan and I about doing one of these talks (in addition to Jarrod) we both kind of got the same look on our faces. I think I said, ‘Wow, I’m totally tapped out.’ But Dan put it best when he followed, ‘Cory, we left it all on the field this year, I’m not sure we have another talk in us.’ I finally said, I won’t be able to teach by then, but I might be able to share a few loosely connected thoughts on some aspect of manhood. I would usually take the opportunity to talk about a theology of work…but I feel like I have talked about that a lot recently. So I am going to talk about something else I am really passionate about…marriage. I’m calling this 5 myths about marriage. Lets start with myth #1.

(Photos by Dave Tan)

1. Marriage Sucks

Let me start with a pretty typical perspective on marriage from a representative of our generation. Bill Simmons (ESPN's sports guy) has started a new feature in his mailbag highlighting an e-mail each month to which he gives the 'Fellas don't get married' award.'

Q: Why can't Hollywood make a movie about a guy who doesn't get married, keeps his friends, loves life, dates hot girls up until they get crazy. But also show his old college roommate married with kids, a nagging wife, a crap job he can't quit because of the kids and mortgage. This should be made and mandatory viewing for any single male by the time he hits 18. At least he would have a fighting chance. If you have a great marriage awesome. But I would tell you that nine of 10 married guys I know are in the old college roommate state of life right now. Good luck all you engaged men. (Suckers.)
-- Gabe B., Waterloo, Iowa

SG: And that wraps up this month's installment for "Fellas, Don't Get Married!" By the way, I'd like to give a special shout-out to my buddy Sully, who's already trained his two young sons to answer the questions "How old will you be before you can think about getting married?" and "Where are you going to college?" with the answers "35" and "South or West." Now that's great parenting. Simmons mailbag

If you watch enough sit coms, movies or hang out with enough married guys, you could start to wonder why anyone would get married if they didn’t believe it was a prerequisite for sex. There are a few lucky ones, who like Wesly and Buttercup, have a magical, once in a life time connection. But most of us will end up divorced or disinterested.

That is not only a myth…it’s a lie. With very few exceptions, guys with crappy marriages are largely responsible for the state of the relationship…or just need to grow up. There is a correlation between guys I respect and quality marriages. (Though part of that is because they attracted women of character). After watching my parents and imbibing the cultural narrative, I was ready for torture on both counts. But both marriage and parenthood are fantastic. They are costly. But they are worth it. I can confidently say that they are God’s gifts, not just theoretically, but empirically. I just want to tell you guys, that marriage and parenthood were both way easier than I had expected. It can be done well. It is God’s plan for most of you.

2. Love is an Emotion

I think that this is the biggest myth of all. There is this sense in our cultural narratives that love is something that happens to you. That is a lie. Chemistry is something that happens to you…love something you do…it’s an act of the will.

I think the term ‘falling in love’ is one of the least helpful semantic constructions in the english language. It suggests that love is something passive, something that happens to you. Something outside your control. But even more destructive, it suggests that love is precarious. If it is so easy to fall into and seemingly random in its object, than surely it is as easily to fall out of or reassign its object.

Love is not a thing in itself…it is the sum of your actions that honor, support and romance your wife. It is not something you can be in. It is something you do.

Even the emotions can be cultivated. I cultivate affection and attraction towards my wife. I keep a list of ‘things I love about my wife’ that includes observations about her skills, gifts, character and physical beauty. New discoveries that I can revel in. I let my thoughts linger on her beauty. You’ll never hire John Cusak to make that movie…but then very few movies are made about marital romance…it doesn’t mean it can’t happen well.

And so if you can’t count on a mystical-gooey-abstract-fated attraction to guide you as you try to choose a wife:

Well first, here is something unhelpful, but hysterical:

One of the things Amanda and I have talked about from time to time is how little our process of choosing a spouse was based on what would actually make a good marriage partner. I am still wrestling with how to articulate this.

Stumbling on Happiness: (p146-7)

But here are some thoughts:

She has to be your best friend. I would never kiss anyone who wasn’t legitimately my closest friend. That’s just my opinion; it’s not in the Bible. But that is the point at which I would start exploring the physical side of things, because that is the point where she is legitimately ‘in play’ for marriage. Until then, she’s just a crush.

Pick someone that you want your kids to be like. For that matter, pick someone that you want to be like not just someone you want to be with. It is a universal axiom, that married people start to act like each other. I once heard Bronwyn say, pick someone who, after you start spending time with her, your friends like you better.

Does she believe in you? Not just in the fog of chemistry, but will she stand by you when you fail. Will she be the voice telling you to try again when you should? Do you respect her enough to hear God say no to you through her? Is she adventurous enough to hear God say yes if he does? When my dream job opened up in Davis, 3000 miles away, I mentioned it casually over dinner. It was Amanda who said “You are applying. We don’t want to wonder ‘What if?’ about that sort of thing.” But recently, I got pretty committed to a plan that I thought God was calling us to…and Amanda said no…and it is pretty clear she was right. That, my friends, is the sort of thing that makes her an amazing wife, that wasn’t even on our radar.

My wife adds (from Proverbs 31:23) “Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.” Is this what she wants for you?

I’m into a lot of stuff. I work pretty long hours, go to school on the side, teach at college life and spend as much time as possible with my kids. People say stuff to me all the time like ‘I just don’t know how you do all the things you do.’ I respond, ‘Have you met my wife. She’s remarkable.’

And what about you? Do you believe in her enough to make sacrifices for her to achieve her goals (even if they aren’t domestic)? Do you want her to flourish, even at the expense of stuff you want to do?

But attraction does matter. You absolutely need to marry someone you are sexually attracted to. You need to be careful not to over-spiritualize this…to take a Gnostic view of marriage.

And I’ll also say, opposites attract, but psychologists tell us that similarities are the currency of compatibility.

(I've never seen guys 'do hair' on a men's retreat. Leave it to Noah to look into the face of cultural expectations and shrug. Color me impressed.)

3. You Simply Cannot Love One Woman Your Whole Life

I had a friend in college that used to say that evolutionary processes had made it at worst impossible and at best miserable for human males to be monogamous. He planned to marry a starter wife that would help him through med school and have his kids and then move on to an array of younger women in his later years. I have other friends who intentionally put marriage off until their mid-thirties – each time they got close enough to a woman they would get scared that this would be the last woman they would ever get to have sex with and jet. Both these friends fundamentally misunderstood humanness.

But I think this is a big question we have as the children of the big divorce generations. When we saw marriages in our parents generation having a coin flip chance at making it, it seems like a pretty good question. At the retreat one of the girls asked something like ‘Forever is a really long time. How do you know you can go the distance.’ And it is true that you cannot love the same woman for 30 years…because after a few years she will not be the same woman. My wife will often tell people that I am not the man she married. But far from being an excuse about why she cannot stand me any more, she describes the process of learning to love who I have become. All I have to wake up tomorrow and chose love my wife. And in 30 years I will wake up that morning and choose to love my wife …but only because I have done so every day in between, discovering new things to love along the way as she grows and changes.

Here is the punch line, though. Whether or not you love your wife in 20 years will have more to do with your character than with her worthiness. The chemistry will fade. There will be a couple kids running around that will multiply the joys but also the fatigue. The question is, will you take the time to remember why you loved her…and to find new things to delight in. And incidentally, whether or not she loves you will have more to do with her character than your worthiness (though you should give as much attention as possible to being lovable) – so picking a woman of character turns out to be extremely important.

4. Marriage Will Fix My Lust Problem

It just doesn’t. In fact, it can make it harder. As a single guy, there is more ‘looking’ and ‘imagining’ that is fair game. It is not only OK to imagine what your life would be like with various girls, it is imperative. But once you get married, that imaginative life that has been part of your basic apparatus…the constant search for a woman…has to be shut down. Its no longer ok. This search that has dominated your imaginative apparatus for years, suddenly has to be replaced.

And, it is true, when you get to have sex, you are less obsessed with it. But getting married does not automatically guarantee the sex you’ve always imagined. Many couples struggle with it and the majority of guys that I am close enough to, to know about their sex lives are not having as much sex as they’d like. And if you are into the porn thing, when you get married that will destroy your wife…instead of just destroying you. So take care of the business of holiness up front. Don’t drag that crap into a marriage.

5. All Couples Fight

Since I am talking about marriage, I thought I’d wrap up with the best advice I ever got about marriage. Amanda and I were hanging out with a couple we respected that had been married a while and had school age kids. At one point I mentioned that all couples fight, something I thought was axiomatic since my parents fought constantly. The other couple became dead serious and said, ‘That is simply not true. You do not have to fight, and shouldn’t. We don’t.’

I thought ‘Bull Crap.’

They sensed my confusion and unpacked the idea for me. They said, ‘We disagree all the time. And some times the disagreements are deeply held, passionate and emotional. But there is a line we will not cross. It becomes a fight when the things you say have the intent to harm. The minute you let something out of your mouth that has ‘intent to harm’ you are fighting. But you don’t have to.’ This has been a really helpful distinction.

("There are (bleeping) snakes in the (bleeping) camp site".)

The New Task 3: Creativity as the Image of God (a marred image)

So this is my first time up here since the ‘Rock Band Project’ and I think the timing worked out pretty well since I am going to be talking about how ‘Beauty and Creativity’ are part of the ‘New Task’ the church is called to tonight.

So I’d like to start with a brief anecdote from that evening. The first two bands each played a U2 song, but half way through the first set Erica and Liz busted out ‘The Streets Have No Name’ copyright 1987. I was sitting in the back near Drew Temple. Drew listened for a few seconds with kind of a confused look on his face and then turned to me and said ‘Stanford, you are old, is this U2?

But he was correct. I was old enough to know the answer to this question (though, to be fair, of the bands covered that night, I listen to way more Paramore, Flyleaf and Anberlin than U2). So let me leverage that wisdom and offer you all a career retrospective of this nearly mythical band:

The creative task of the Church is something I feel strongly about hand have thought a lot about in the last 2 years or so[3]…but in the end, I am still, fundamentally, an engineer. Therefore I will need to lean on others for my content…so expect copious quotes.

In the next 25 minutes I am going to try to do 3 things. First I am going to try to build a brief Biblical theology of Creativity. Then I am going to talk about two implications for Christians (Note: these got mostly cut from the actual talk...as usual, I wrote 2 talks and had to decide which to give), first, implications for a theology of the arts, then implications for the aesthetics of Christian worship. So, first, lets build a theology of creativity.

One of the tools I have often run into when trying to formulate a Christian world view about anything is to try to understand it in the categories of: Creation Fall and Redemption. And I have found that the model works pretty well here, so let’s look at the Biblical data under these three headings.

i. Creation

(Broken Splendor - Makoto Fujimura - http://www.makotofujimura.com/)

The bulk of the Biblical data from which we can build a theology of creativity is, unsurprisingly, in the Creation narrative. The first thing we learn about God, page 1, is that he creates. But it isn’t just some impassive mechanical act. He likes it. The creating God we see in Genesis one is so unlike alternative gods of the ancient near east. For many others the world was the intentional or unintentional by product of a divine conflict. But for the Hebrews and for us, it was a pleasurful, creative act.[4]

And God’s creation isn’t simply a pragmatic, functional making. He isn’t just putting together something ‘useful.’ Look with me at Genesis 2:9 he “made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.” God’s vision for the ideal environment for human worship and flourishing was a place that was useful and beautiful…that is fulfilled pragmatic and aesthetic criteria. God created a world that was sublimely good in both its functionality and its beauty.

This verse reminds me of ‘the projects’ in Buffalo. In the 70’s central planners made very modern, clean, new, functional, high rise tenement buildings that were made available to low income families. But they failed. In part they failed because they concentrated and exiled poverty. But I also think they failed because, like the great communist projects in the Eastern block, at the same time, they were butt ugly. They were masterfully designed to be as functional as possible. But no thought was given to their aesthetic value and their drab confines seemed to diminish the humanness of their residents until, they were eventually abandoned, a failure. But God didn’t create a simply useful inhabitation for us. He didn’t just make us ‘the projects.’ He made a world that was beautiful and useful.

And then the passage says that we are made in God’s Image (Genesis 1:29)…The Imago Dei…but what does that mean. Well, it is pretty clear what it doesn’t mean. I don’t know a single theologian that believes that we look like God…that we share a similar biological apparatus. But after that there is very little agreement. There are many ideas about what the ‘image of God’ in humanity really is …a moral sense, a capacity for love, reason, volition…and many, many more. But each of these is pretty speculative. What about the text? What clues does the text give us? Dorothy Sayers has some ideas…

“It is observable that in the passage leading up to the statement about man, he has given no detailed information about God. Looking at man, he sees in him something essentially divine, but when we turn back to se what he says about the original upon which the “image” of God was modeled, we find only the single assertion, “God created.” The characteristic common to God and man is apparently that: the desire and ability to make things.” –Dorothy Sayers

In the first 26 verses of the Bible, up until God declares that humans share his ‘image’ in a special, what attribute of God does the text overwhelmingly document? He is a Creator. I think that the only conclusion rooted in the text, about what it means that we bear the image of God, the Imago Dei, is that we were created not simply as biological replicators but with the ability to create and generate things that are beautiful and useful. Like God we have the ability not only to create but to delight in the things we and others create.

And we find quick evidence that God has passed the creative task on to us as part of the fundamental apparatus of humanness in the first assignment he gives to this brand new human. He asks him to come up with names for the animals. Now, I said a couple weeks ago, that this was fundamentally a scientific act, a project of Biological taxonomy…and it was, but it was also fundamentally creative. Andy Crouch said about the story of “God is perfectly capable of naming every animal and giving Adam a dictionary-but he does not. HE makes room for Adam’s creativity.”[5] Adam is the only bit of God’s vast creation that he invites into his process of creation.

I had heard that the difference between creation and ‘making’ was that the ‘making’ that humans do starts with raw material while God created ex nehilo – out of nothing – but, it really seems to me that what Adam is doing here is closer to the later than the former. Adam couldn’t create matter out of nothing, but God gave him creative responsibility within his ability…because this was what made humans fundamentally distinct from the rest of the animals.

Here something I want to address early. When I start talking about beauty and creativity, I am afraid that all of you ME’s and EE’s and XE’s[6] start to tune out…as if by choosing a vocation of engineering you have sentenced yourself to a dull, beauty free, creativeless existence. But that is simply mistaken. Mechanical engineering is the same thing. You are accessing the divine image by exerting creativity to bring order out of chaos. You are participating in the Imago Dai. You are creating that which is useful and also beautiful…your emphasis may be on the useful where the artist is a little more focused on the beautiful…but you are both fundamentally participating in the image of God.

Another thing I think is interesting about this story is, what language does Adam name them in? Is there any language in which this is still their name? I don’t think so. So the act is creative but ephemeral, like a piece of music that is only there for a short time. The creative act does not need to persist to have value.

And before we move on, I’d just like to say, that I think this is the point of Genesis 1. I wouldn’t want to try to squeeze much more out of it. It isn’t a science text. It wasn’t meant to be. I hope that if you are here tonight and wonder if you can accept this idea that God is creator and that he has made us creative even if you find the data of evolution totally compelling, I want to tell you that the answer is yes.

ii. Fall

(http://www.scottkolbo.com/)

But, the story does not end in Genesis 2. It is just getting started. Something goes horribly wrong in Genesis 3. God’s created co-creator abandons the role. He trades beauty for knowledge and it diminishes him and leaves a cosmic scar on everything that follows. We call this the fall. While God created everything good…something went horribly wrong. All is not as it’s supposed to be.

The serpent offers a different vision of humanness. Where God invites Adam to create, the serpent’s invitation is to consume.[7] It leaves them exposed and ashamed. But I find it really interesting to notice their initial response to their new, desperate situation. They create. They make cloths out of the surrounding leaves. [8] They are still God’s image bearers, but their creative abilities and impulses are now skewed…they are active but damaged. This leaves our theology of creativity in tension. Steve Turner describes it like this:

“The world is neither so full of evil that we can’t enjoy it nor so full of fondness that we can abandon ourselves to it.[9] When we see something beautiful there is always the qualifying thought that it is tarnished. When we see something ugly, there is always the qualifying thought that there is something of the Creator hidden in there.”[10] He goes on to say

“The modern temptation is to make art with the intention that it becomes idolized.”

And this is kind of where the fall leaves us. Our impulse and ability to create is potentially our most fundamental connection to God. But it is a damaged connection, often leaving us vested in the created things. Much of the Bible is a warning against worshiping created things. Again and again God’s people are warned against the propensity to allow our worship to be drawn from our creator to the things he has enabled us to make. Our capacity for beauty, the very thing that makes us capable of worship, gets misapplied, and leaves us diminished:

“The books and the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things – the beauty, the memory of our own past – are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshipers. For they are not the thing itself, they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune we have not heard, news from a country we have never yet visited.” -CS Lewis The Weight of Glory

Chad Walsh says that the Christian creative (a category under which he includes the artist and the carpenter…the author and the mechanical engineer…the painter and the hair dresser) “can honestly see himself as a kind of earthly assistant to God, carry on the delegated work of creation, making the fullness of creation fuller. At the same time, he is saved from the romantic tendency toward idolatry.”

The fall turns our longing for beauty into appetites we frantically try to fulfill. Like all of the things created good, our creative impulse, our basic desires to make things useful and beautiful, are damaged and can be turned inward. The quest for beauty is replaced by the hunger for porn, the longing for truth is replaced by the transmission of propaganda[11], an active appreciation of beauty is exchanged for passive entertainment.

But the Christian response to this is not just abstaining from the distortion…but must also include a pursuit of the original intent. And so we seek to restore and redeem the God’s image in us by reclaiming creativity and beauty and celebrating it wherever we see it regardless of wether it comes from a place of belief or not.

iii. Redemption

But, while the story does not end with Genesis 2, it also does not end with Genesis 3. God invades our messy predicament by living a human life in Jesus. But it is really curious how he does this. For about 30 years, the first 90% of his life, he works as a craftsman. This does not get enough attention[12]. For 30 years...about as long as I have lived…the God of the Universe…the original creator of all things…got out of bed, went into a small shop, and gave his attentions to the carefull and artfull construction of wooden items of utility and beauty. The one that Colossians says made everything, turns his attention to tables, lamp stands and bread boxes for more than two decades. Before Jesus shatters the cosmic powers of sin and death, he redeems created humanness. He worked and created and called it good.

But then he did win the cosmic victory by raising from the dead and demonstrating that all things would eventually be restored. And the eventual restoration would be physical and beautiful. But here is an interesting detail about the beauty of the age to come…the ‘new earth’ and the ‘new Jerusalem’ that will be rebuilt when this age finally expires. It’s beauty will be, in part, constructed of the creative makings of this age.

For information on this new age we often go to the book of Revelation. But there are also interesting passages in the prophets.[13] Isaiah 60:6-13, for example, is probably painting an eschatological picture[14] of the new earth God will make at the end of the age.

3 Nations will come to your light,
and kings to the brightness of your dawn.

4 "Lift up your eyes and look about you:
All assemble and come to you;
your sons come from afar,
and your daughters are carried on the arm.

5 Then you will look and be radiant,
your heart will throb and swell with joy;
the wealth on the seas will be brought to you,
to you the riches of the nations will come.

6 Herds of camels will cover your land,
young camels of Midian and Ephah.
And all from Sheba will come,
bearing gold and incense
and proclaiming the praise of the LORD.

9 Surely the islands look to me;
in the lead are the ships of Tarshish,
bringing your sons from afar,
with their silver and gold,
to the honor of the LORD your God,
the Holy One of Israel,
for he has endowed you with splendor.

13 "The glory of Lebanon will come to you,
the pine, the fir and the cypress together, [14.5]
to adorn the place of my sanctuary;
and I will glorify the place of my feet.

The thing that is interesting about this passage is that it seems that in, some mysterious non-trivial way, God's restored creation will be furnished, at least in part, with the creative 'makings' of this age. Andy Crouch says about this passage:

“So when John echoes Isaiah’s vision of the new Jerusalem being filled with the ‘glory of the nations,’ he is not picturing simply “Christian” cultural artifacts…we will find the new creation furnished with culture…The new Jerusalem will be truly a city: a place suffused with culture, a place where culture has reached its flourishing…’Christian’ cultural artifacts will surely go through the same cultural winnowing as ‘non-Christian’ artifacts. Knowing that the new Jerusalem will be furnished with the best of every culture frees us from having to give a ‘religious’ or evangelistic explanation for everything we do…If the ships of Tarshish and the camels of Midian fan find a place in the new Jerusalem, our work, no matter how ‘secular’ can too.”[15]

We started out with the idea that the new task is composed of 1) proclaiming that Jesus is Lord 2) acts of justice and 3) creative makings of utility and beauty. The idea that the creative makings of this world, along side the acts of justice and the proclamation of the Lordship of Christ, will in some strange way persist into the next age (from Christian and non-Christian sources) gives them a new dignity on this side.

But another thing that is interesting about creativity. Like work and sex, it is a pre-fall ordinance. Which means, as I have stated before, that in God’s best plan for human flourishing, we are creative beings. So I really think that some version of the arts will persist in God’s redeemed world. At the retreat Dan and I drove to the beach together. Responsibilities cut our time short and we were back in the car almost as soon as we had left. I remember Dan suggested that even the longing that a too-short visit to the beach leaves us with points to the fullness of God’s eventual restoration. And then he said, “I bet you’ll have time to finish the novel you are trying to write.” And he was right. I lack the capacity and creativity to write the novel I want to write. But (and this is totally speculative now) that seems like the sort of thing that God would ask me to do in the Urban paradise that he will make…the parallel command to Adam naming the animals.

2 Questions

So from this theological treatment I’d like to look briefly at two applications: 1) the question of whether Art is the sort of thing Christians should do and enjoy and 2) the role of aesthetic beauty in Christian worship

I. How Should Christians Interact With the Arts?

Well, fist off, probobly not like this:

Christians and Art

There are a number of applications I could try to make from this brief theological survey. But I have decided to talk about art and corporate worship. What is the purpose of art? Does art have a place in the Christian life? Should our posture towards art be combative or consumerist or something else? Do we experience art, or do we use it? What is the role of the Christian artist? These questions deserve their own talk…and probably a different speaker. But I’d just briefly like to take a shot at the relationship between Christians and the arts. If we believe that the ability to create and to derive joy from what we and others create is one of the fundamental keys to our humanness, it seems to me like Christians, more than any other sub-culture should support and celebrate the arts. Historically that has not been the case. I remember walking the halls of the Vatican museum several years ago and thinking to myself, the Church used to be the primary benefactor of the arts. But, oddly, that is not what I see anymore. In our rush to be culture warriors we have often surrendered the arts as something ‘godless’ and secular…only having utility if it can be leveraged as a platform for evangelism or worship. Andy Crouch says “I did not grow up in or near fundamentalist Christianity, but friends who did remember plenty of sermons about the danger of the world, but none about the delights of the world.”[16] I did not either, but I can since verify the observation he relates.

Francis Schaeffer says “Art is not something we merely analyze or value for its intellectual content. It is something to be enjoyed…Part of the lostness of modern man is that they no longer see value in the work of art as a work of art…too often (Christians) think that a work of art has value only if we reduce it to a tract…Christian schools, Christian parents and Christian pastors often…(do) not make a distinction between technical excellence and content, the whole of much great art has been rejected with scorn and ridicule.” Schaeffer and others would say that art has intrinsic value in unveiling our humanness. Rather than simplifying the world to a simple familiar message art can to revel in the complexity of God’s world. To find humanity in each person God loves. To delight in words and images.”

This is one of the reasons the ‘Rock Band Project’ was such an exciting event. We, as a Christian community, were showing interest in the arts and the creative process…we were owning the oft-ignored portion of our ‘new task.’

You might be hard pressed to find someone as passionate about evangelism and justice as me…but these are overlapping, non-exclusive mandates for the church. We proclaim that Jesus is Lord, work hard for justice and joyfully create sometimes at the same time, sometimes independent of each other.

“What is most needed in our time are Christians who are deeply serious about cultivating and creating but who wear that seriousness lightly – who are not desperately trying to change the world but who also wake up every morning eager to create.” -Crouch

“So What About Christian Art?”

So what about ‘Christian art?’ If Christians are not only permitted but encouraged to create or at least support those who do, shouldn’t there be strict limitations on what they can create? And what standards should Christians use to evaluate art: content or aesthetic value? ”Christian art,” in this sense, is usually either an aid to worship or a means of evangelism.

I have a lot to say about Christians in the arts, but I think a good summary would be Rob Bell’s quip that “the word ‘Christian’ makes a great noun and a very bad adjective.” One of the things that has really diminished the quality of much of Christian art of the last few decades is that in order to get that title, it has to be primarily ‘religious’ in content. But we do not require that of any other profession…of any other form of creative making.

“Art, it must be remembered, has intrinsic value. A Christian doctor doesn’t normally feel the need to justify the medical profession even though it often provides little opportunity for presentations of the gospel.” -turner

Christians who pursue the arts (and – contrary to our Engineering image - there are more than a few of you in here, I know of at least 4 college lifers who are writing novels, just as one example) need to have the freedom to explore a wide range of human experiences. They often need the freedom to suspend certainty and dwell in the realm of uncertainty, ambiguity and self critique. On the whole, the Church needs to be a place of grace and freedom for those who want to explore and create.

II. What is the Role of Aesthetics in Corporate Worship?

Modern people tended to think that there was very little connection between humanness and the built environment. That is why we have so many strip mall waste lands (the capitalist version of ‘the projects’) and churches that look like vast warehouses. In the last 30 years in our movement there has been a move away from aesthetics in corporate worship. It has been a pragmatic move to large, sparse, warehouse type buildings with minimum art or adornment. The message is clear. Content is important, form is not. (But that is a commitment to a form.) I call it the Wallmartification of the American Church.

But post-modern people are revaluating this. We are beginning to believe that human psychological health and productivity is connected to the beauty[17] of their built environments. The Old Testament is full of extremely boring chapters describing the in pedantic detail the aesthetic environment for Hebrew worship. And then there is this strange passage in Ex 31:

1 Then the LORD said to Moses, 2 "See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, 3 and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts- 4 to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, 5 to cut and set stones, to work in wood, and to engage in all kinds of craftsmanship. 6 Moreover, I have appointed Oholiab son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, to help him. Also I have given skill to all the craftsmen to make everything I have commanded you…They are to make (all these things) just as I commanded you."

But the issue of reclaiming an aesthetic component of corperate worship is growing in importance. The emerging generations are increasingly multisensory in their persuit of truth and transcendence:

“Modern thinkers want things very orderly and systematic because they learn in a logical and progressive manner. They prefer, generally, to sit and listen. Emerging post-Christian generations, on the other hand (Xers and milenials, you and me) long to experience a transcendent God during a worship gathering rather than simply learn about him. They want fluidity and freedom rather than a neatly flowing set program. They want to see the arts and a sense of mystery brought into the worship service, rather than focusing on professionalism and excellence.” –Dan Kimball Emerging Worship

“True, we can worship anywhere, anytime – in an igloo, a palace or in a cardboard shack. I have had powerful worship experiences in a shabby cold basement with ugly cinderblock walls. So aesthetics is not an end in itself. But in our culture, which is becoming more multisensory and less respectful of God, we have a responsibility to pay attention to the design of the space where we assemble regularly…Many of our modern churches have woefully neglected thoughtful architectural beauty in their design of their buildings. Most of our buildings no longer have stained glass, or if they do, quite often it is of the tacky 1970’s variety (GMF story). This is unfortunate because our emerging culture highly values art…Your building may not be a cathedral, but you can convey that sense of timeless beauty, order, and sacred space by finding ways to use…images on your screens.” Dan Kimbal Emerging Worship

I would like to make two applications to college life before we wrap up:

1) We, as a movement, have hidden too long behind the ‘joyful noise’ excuse. When Amanda and I moved to California we visited over two dozen churches and found that many of them were doing music so poorly that a common phrase we begin to hear on Sunday mornings was ‘Praise God Anyways.’ For decades the American church has believed that content matters and form does not. But this does not seem to be a Biblical view of worship. So quality matters. And I have to say, I have never been involved with a ministry that has so much musical ability and such gifted musical leaders.

2) We meet in a cold, stark lecture hall. I think we have mainly bought into the idea that the aesthetic environment does not affect worship. But we are trying to reach a post-modern, post-Christian generation that tends to evaluate truth through the a multisensory apparatus. Does our form match our content. As you are thinking about what kind of contributions you can make to this ministry next year, I hope a couple of you would start thinking about what we could do aesthetically with these meetings to make the environment, as well as the content, . And this will require artists with aesthetic sense and engineers with the technical savvy to pull it off. And both are reflecting the image of God as they create.

_____________
[1] http://www.scottkolbo.com/ His work reflects his belief "that despite our best efforts to look important, rational, and dignified, we all make fools of ourselves in the end. Human nature is corrupted by folly, and even our best intentions are subverted by our mixed motivations."
[3] Biographical note: ‘No beauty for you!’
[4] Andy Crouch Culture Makers p21
[5] Andy Crouch Culture Making p109
[6] Where X is a variable that stands for some adjective that modifies the word ‘Engineer’
[7] Andy Crouch Culture Makers p114
[8] Andy Crouch Culture Makers p115 “They sewed fig leafs together –the first act after the consumption of the fruit is cultural…From the fig leaves onward, culture becomes intertwined with sin-indeed it is the place where humanity acts out their rebellion from God and their alienation from each other.”
[9] “Making sense of the wonder and terror of the world is the original human preoccupation.” –Crouch
[10] Steve Turner Imagine: A Vision for Christians and the Arts
[11] “Poetry, for example, is a useful antidote for the poison of sloganeering, spin and double talk. It helps words retain their meaning because it acknowledges that corrupt language results in corrupt thinking. If the best words can no longer be said, the best ideas can no longer be thought. “If a nation’s literature declines,” said Ezra Pound, “the nation atrophies and decays.” -turner
[12] From anyone but Jim Gaffigan.
[13] Though, all of these passages have to be handled with care since the genre tends to be so metaphorical.
[14] In the confusing, ‘double fulfillment’ way that the prophet’s speak about the ‘day of the Lord’.

[14.5] Note the interesting ecological component in addition to the artistic, functional and cultural components.
[15] AC CM 169
[16] p85
[17] In addition to the functionality.

Why the Body Matters

We are in the second week of a new, post Easter series (or Easter season series if you were to follow the liturgical calendar) called 'Life in Light of the Resurrection'

First two weeks – Theology or ‘How the resurrection changes our thinking.’
Next three weeks – Praxis or ‘How the resurrection changes our actions.’

We are going to do theology first, looking at three views of the body and then briefly look at three case studies regarding how those views work out.

I. Three Views of The Body

Disclaimer: Today I am going to be teaching. Pretty much every time I have taught at college life this year I have been preaching, which is pitched primarily to the passions and volition and secondarily transfers information. Today, I am going to teach, which means my primary purpose will be to transfer information. But my hope is that it will be useful information with deeply practical outworkings.

i. Materialism

Materialism is the belief that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things. I don’t think I have to spend too much time convincing you that materialism is the primary perspective on ‘the body’ in our culture.

The body is reduced to organs, the will is reduced to survival instincts, love is reduced to the desire to propagate our genetic material, creativity is reduced to electrochemical impulses, we are simply carbon based machines. Organic robots.

Dopamine clip

In materialism, the body is simultaneously too important and not important enough. The body has a frenzy of importance because once it expires, so do you. Yet it is not important enough, because it is simply a machine. While the theist has some trouble with what is called ‘the problem of evil’ the materialist tends to have trouble with ‘the problem of beauty.’

ii. Gnosticism

The Gnostics were a philosophical/religious sect common in the Roman empire in the first century. It was a very popular religion at the time that the early church was just starting to grow. They had a complex belief system that would be tedious for me to describe. But they essentially believed in two gods, a ‘greater’ god who was good and who created the spiritual world and an evil one that created the physical universe. They called the latter the demiurge[1]. They see the physical universe as a mistake that never should have happened. Therefore, the main project of Gnosticism was to transcend the physical into a spiritual existence.[2]

Within the first 50 years of Christianity there were Gnostic teachers in the church who wanted to make Jesus a prophet of their belief system. There are actually texts in our Bibles where the authors are warning against a Gnostic view of the world. Check out the first couple verses of I John 4:

1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.

Many people read this and think that ‘testing the spirits’ is some kind of mystical skill, a kind of spooky demon detector. But that is not what John was talking about. Already, within a couple decades of the church, there are already Gnostic influences that want to deny the bodily death or resurrection of Jesus and elevate the importance of the soul over the body. John says that the key to right belief is that Jesus rose, not just spiritually, but bodily.

You see, the Gnostics had trouble with why God would take a physical form and, in particular, why he would die. So they claimed that he was essentially a ghost and that on the cross he tricked the Romans into killing someone else (which just strikes me as deplorable). Incidentally, we see this idea that Jesus escaped crucifixion in two other places:

1. Islam[3] - only a prophet, yet God would not let this happen to him
2. Monte Python and the Life of Brian

Gnosticism makes the opposite error to materialism. While materialism holds that the body is all that is, Gnosticism elevates the spirit as good and despises the body as evil. In our souls are our true and better selves and our bodies are the enemy.

So why bring up a 2000 year old philosophy. Because many Christians are closer to Gnosticism than the Bible in their view of the body. We are often so busy not being materialists that we end up Gnostics. Some of you are probably closer to Gnosticism than Christian theology in the way you view the body and the physical universe.

Here one example from Bronwyn. You often hear Christians say that Jesus has come to save your souls…no he hasn’t…he has come to save you…all of you.

Which leads us to the Christian view of the body:

iii. Christianity

So the materialist and Gnostic views of the body leave it either too important, not important enough, or somehow, both too important and not important enough at the same time. The interesting thing about the Christian position is that it is not half way between these. The Christian hypothesis is that the physical and the spiritual were both created good and are fundamentally intertwined to the point that you cannot make a value distinction between them. We embrace the fantastic beauty and importance of both our physical and spiritual existence, because they cannot be separated.

So to build a Christian view of the body, lets do a really brief Biblical survey. I think the major data on how God views our bodies, our physical existence, comes from the beginning of the story (creation) the climax or turning point of the story (the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus) and the end of the story (what theologians call Eschatology).

-Creation

We are often trained to think about and explain Christianity by beginning in Genesis 3. Sometimes it seems like it all starts with the fall, with things going horribly wrong. I could see how this would give us a pretty negative view of the body (And, don’t get me wrong, I think understand human falleness is fundamental to understanding humanness). But…the story doesn’t start there. It all starts with God creating a physical reality oozing with spiritual reality, set up as the perfect environment for worship and human flourishing. He made us physical beings with a capacity for worship and called it GOOD. Whatever you do with a Christian theology of the body…you have to believe that our physical bodies are good.

-Incarnation

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14

Then at the climax of salvation history, God himself takes human form in the person of Jesus Christ. This is shocking! The Gnostic heresy withers under the story of Christmas. The idea that God himself, in the form of little baby Jesus soiled his swaddle totally offends the Gnostic sensibility. In fact, my Muslim friends will sometime bring up the idea Jesus had bodily functions as a slam dunk argument that he could not be God. I argue, instead, that it imbues our human, bodily, existence with dignity…because not only did God create it good, he essentially declared it good a second time by experiencing it himself.

The sublime mystery of Christianity is that our physical, bodily existences are ennobled by God himself experienced a bodily existence and did it perfectly. He had a mom and chores and a job. God essentially said for a second time in the incarnation, ‘It is good’ by taking a human body.

-Resurrection

And then Jesus rose from the dead. As Dan said, in the resurrection, the thin veil between heaven and earth was traversed, and God’s perfect and eternal rule which exists in a parallel but intersecting reality with our fallen and rebellious reality, broke through in one particular event…the resurrection. Jesus raised from the dead, and he was not a ghost. His body was raised. I love that line in the Updike poem my friend read during the sung worship time:

Make no mistake: if He rose at all

it was as His body;

if the cells’ dissolution did not reverse, the molecules

reknit, the amino acids rekindle,

the Church will fall.

Let us not mock God with metaphor,

analogy, sidestepping, transcendence;

making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the

faded credulity of earlier ages:

let us walk through the door.

God’s primary sign post to the totality of his eternal rule, was the eternal and renewed body of the risen Christ. Let me make a couple brief observations about this:

Darrell Bock: “The Resurrection Body is both like and unlike our current bodies.’
There is a discontinuity and continuity between Jesus’ pre and post resurrection bodies. Three of the gospels have different post-resurrection encounters and ALL THREE have something in common. At first, Jesus is not recognized, then he unequivocally is. There is continuity and discontinuity. In several of these passages, he eats something, which is a blatantly tactile demonstration of his renewed physicality, the continuity between his new body and his old one. Yet he disappears and walks through closed doors, indicating that, clearly, the new body is also fundamentally different.

When we die, we will be raised from the dead. Not just our souls, as if that was who we really are. Our selves will be raise…our bodies will be raised as well as our consciousness. And if we are found in allegiance to Christ, our bodies will be renewed like his. They will be like our current bodies, fundamentally physical (for example: we will not become angels as many people erroneously believe) but they will be better bodies.

-Eschatology

If you are like me, Eschatology, or a theology of the end times, kind of creeps you out. My early experiences with eschatology involved charts and descriptions of multi-headed beasts and precise speculations about who the anti-Christ is. Most people tend to think the Bible has a lot more to say about the events surrounding and following the return of Christ than it actually does. But if you wade through the nonsense…there is some really important information. Jesus will return and create a new heaven and a new earth and he will be there and if you have submitted your allegiance to him you will be there and we will all have bodies. Jesus will still have the wounds with which he purchased our salvation. Because those wounds, like our salvation will be physical. The most famous verse about what this will be like is in 1 Cor 15:

35But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body… The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

I actually think Modest Mouse (who is an agnostic – in one of his songs he gives God ~ a 20% chance of existing) has one of the best lines about this. He says

For your sake I hope heaven and hell are really there
But I wouldn’t hold my breath
You wasted life
Why wouldn’t you waste death
Why wouldn’t you waste the after life

-Ocean Breathes Salty

I think that is pretty insightful of Isaac Brock. If you spend life waiting for some disembodied escape from the body and the earth…you are going to be disappointed with eternal life. It is going to be physical. It is going to be AWESOME, but it is going to be PHYSICAL. There is no scriptural justification that it will be some sort of eternal church service.

In the book Surprised by Hope that some of the student leaders read together this summer, NT Wright’s argues the Christian, ‘heaven’ is not our final destination.[4] Wright talks, I think correctly, about ‘life after life after death’ in which we will be have a renewed bodily existence on a renewed earth living perfectly intertwined existences of physical and spiritual reality.

II. Three Implications of the Christian Theology of the Body

So I really believe that theology matters. What we believe affects how we act and how we act affects what we believe. That is why this series deals with both. But I’d like to look briefly at three case studies regarding how our view of the body works out practically in three aspects of our lives, work, sleep and sexuality…I am going to cover them in order of increasing ‘funness.’

i. Studying

You are vocationally students, though many of you do have jobs to make it through school. How does a Christian theology of the body affect that? Well, for the materialist, studying can either take on way too much importance or way too little. And you know people who suffer from both. Either academic achievement is the door to happiness which is all there is so it has ultimate value or it is as meaningless as anything else we do.

(http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/ comic here)

The Gnostic view tends to undervalue studying, especially for Christians. Every choice you have to make between studying and ministry gets decided for ministry because the spiritual is the only thing that is of value.

Here’s an interesting implication of the theology of the new body. If we are going to have bodies and live in a city eternally…I think we are going to have jobs. As I have said before, work is what is called a pre-fall ordinance, which is to say that in paradise, in Genesis, before the temptation and fall, when the first couple were living God’s best possible plan for human flourishing, they had jobs. Work and vocation…in your case school…should be a worshipful act.

In the scriptures, Solomon and Adam were Scientists. The scriptures say Solomon “described plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of walls. He also taught about animals and birds, reptiles and fish. 34Men of all nations came to listen to Solomon's wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his wisdom.” 1 Kings 4:33-34

And then there is Adam…God’s first task to Adam was an act of biological taxonomy. He named the animals. It probably took him a long time. It was hard work. But why would God ask Adam to do science instead of ‘ministry’ right off the bat. Why biological taxonomy rather than building a temple or writing a worship song. Because when done correctly, in gratitude before Jesus, with a desire to be a co-creator and, like God, bring order out of chaos…Science is worship.

(Side note: If Adam was actually a biologist before he was a gardener, does that make science the world’s oldest profession?)

And lest we forget the humanities. Daniel studied pagan literature under duress. Not only was did he spend all of his time studying arcane literature, it was the literature of a civilization that had wipe his out. And he did awesome at it. This was God’s task for him for a season. He became a student of that culture and gave it everything he had, because in his life, his physical vocation and his spiritual devotion were intertwined. So a Christian view of the unity of the physical and spiritual, can protect you from making your studies too important but can also keep you from making them not important enough.

ii. Sleep

Sleep is, obviously, connected with studying since the more you do one the less you do the other. Again, materialists distort sleep in both directions. It either becomes too important, or, more often, entirely expendable. Gnostics generally see fatigue as spiritual weakness that must be overcome. If you are truly spiritual you shouldn’t need sleep.

A Christian view of the body includes the idea that God providentially made our strivings limited. Our bodies were designed to shut down cyclically in an act of worship and recognition of who actually rules. I consider sleep a spiritual discipline. Amanda will ask me from time to time, “Are you sleeping like a Christian?” The unspoken question is ‘are you trying to be God?’

If I could change anything about my undergrad, I would sleep more.

And here is the thing, if you have tended to your studies along the way as if it was worship and, therefore, worthy of your serious and diligent attentions, then brain scientists tell us sleep turns out to be more useful than cramming when you get to the end of the quarter.

iii. Sexuality

‘The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places;’ Ps 16:6

And then we come to sex. I put it at the end because I figured that even if I was going over time, I might still hold your attention. I want you to see, especially with sexuality, how the materialist view of the body fails in both directions…for the materialist sex is simultaneously too important and not important enough.

I do not think I have to work too hard to make the case that the materialist culture of the academic setting makes sex too important. A couple weeks ago, nearly a thousand students showed up for the authorized porn screening. Nearly 300 people in line did not make it in. In my opinion they were the lucky ones. Malcolm Muggeridge says this:

“Sex is the mysticism of materialism and the only possible religion in a materialistic society.”

Because sex is such a powerfully transcendent experience, the materialist gives it almost ultimate value…but it ends up too important. The experience simply cannot bear the expectation in the long term.

But I would also argue that, for the materialist, sex is also not important enough. I don’t think this point is better made than by Russell Crowe in the movie ‘A Beautiful Mind.’

Nash: I don't exactly know what I am required to say in order for you to have intercourse with me. But could we assume that I said all that. I mean essentially we are talking about fluid exchange right? So could we go just straight to the sex.

You see, sex might be the only religion of the materialist. It may be of ultimate importance. But ultimately, it is not important enough. It is basically a fluid exchange. This is an impoverished view, not only of sex, but of humanity.

But the Gnostic view of sex also fails. To reject sexuality as unspiritual is to deny the obvious gift of God. The world rightly labels us as prudes if we can’t admit that sex is Awesome.

Of course, as we all know, Christianity does include boundaries for sexuality. God has limited sex to marriage and within marriage it is limited to activities that both partners find ennobling and edifying. But here is the thing people don’t understand. God does not place boundaries around sex because it is bad. He placed boundaries around sex because it is so intensely good that it is volatile. CS Lewis argues that there are very few ‘bad things.’ Most ‘evil’ is simply the misuse, distortion, or overuse of a created good. And the better something is the more powerful is its distortion. That is why we are a culture enslaved to sexuality. The Christian response to this distortion is not the Gnostic rejection of sex as bad or the materialist capitulation of sex as causal or ultimate…but an acceptance of sex a very good when experienced within the boundaries God has created it for.[5]

So, anyway, I hope you can see how spending two weeks on the theologies of the new earth and the new body…on who we are and where we are headed in light of the resurrection…starts to define our new task. We have a responsibility and privilege to tell the story of how heaven broke into this age in the person of Jesus and the event of the resurrection. But because Christians believe in the unity and wholeness and comlete dignity of the human person…because wse believe that the physical is intertwined with the spiritual…we are also called to be a people who are about justice and beauty. We reject the false dichotomy between a message for the soul and a mission to the body. We see our friends and neighbors as whole people and do what we can to offer them what we can

___________________________
[1] Brief Aside: I love my job. There are not a lot of jobs I would rather do. But occasionally when I do entertain the idea of a different kind of career, it is always as a writer for television or movies. It is not without a little embarrassment that I confess that my favorite television show of all time is Buffy the Vampire Slayer…but wouldn’t the demiurge be the best Buffy super villain of all time.
[2] I also blame Plato who perpetuated the unhelpful dualism between the inner and outer life exalting the former over the latter.
[3] Whether or not this passage actually teaches that someone was crucified in Jesus’ place turns out to be a pretty complicated question of Qur’anic hermeneutics. But it is a common folk or popular belief within Islam.
[4] It actually seems questionable as to weather it is a place at all.
[5] I had to cut the ‘will there be sex in heaven?’ material for time but here is what I was working on: Incidentally, sex also a pre-fall ordinance. Which means that it is unconditionally good (though our bent natures tend to turn it into a weapon rather than a service)…but also raises the question…will there be sex in heaven? (From Nic's Blog - Kreeft's Talk is here)

“Asking "will there be physical sexual intercourse in heaven?" is like a kid asking after 'the talk', "Can you eat ice cream while you do it?" We do not eat during sex, not because eating isn't good, but because we are taken with a greater pleasure. And in that case, it is likely we will experience all kinds of greater and more intimate forms of 'intercourse' that will make love making as we know it now facile and clumsy in comparison. It's not that sex will be outlawed, it's that it will be swallowed up in something greater, in something that renders it wholly obsolete.” –Peter Kreeft

Seven Mile: Jesus on the Road to Emmaus

So over spring break I went ‘manpacking’ with several college life guys. The reason I bring it up, besides the chance to mention that Cory packed an electric toothbrush, is that we hiked about 7 miles a day with some modest elevation gain in perfect weather, it took 4 to 5 hours.…which according to the first verse, is very similar to the setting of today’s passage…so I’ve name this talk:


So there are really two major themes I’d like to look at in this passage with a brief prolog and epilog. The first is how Jesus’ sees himself in light of the Hebrew Scriptures and the second is the idea that as we observe how Jesus reveals himself to these two travelers, we can pick up some hints about how Jesus reveals himself to us.

Characters: I want to notice two things about the characters in this story. First of all, they are minor characters. Jesus’ early appearance wasn’t to any of the guys we have become familiar with in the story to date. His fist, extended, post resurrection appearance was to a couple of random dudes we have never heard of.

Second, Richard Bauckham, in his recent, definitive work ‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts’ points out something about this passage that has really startled the community of Biblical scholarship. This story is told from the perspective of Cleopas. It is as if he was telling the story. Luke shifts the storytelling position of his narrative to inhabit Cleopas’ perspective. Bauckham suggest this is because Luke included the story just as Cleopas told it. And, as Bronwyn argued last week, the reason he names Cleopas is because he is still alive and you can go ask him. In essence, Luke is citing his work (Cleopas, 33). As with all citations, its purpose is to build your argument on the basis of the evidential claims of others.

So from here, I would like to make two major observations about this text.

1. It Has All Always Been About Jesus

v27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

v45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

Most of you are probably vaguely aware that there are dozens of passages in the Hebrew Scriptures, written between 500 and 2000 years before the life of Jesus, that predict the activities of a coming Messiah and correlate to the events of Jesus’ life with uncanny precision and clarity. Let me start out with just three brief examples:

“The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.” Deut 18:15

Jesus says, beginning with Moses, he explains that the Hebrew Scriptures talk about him. Well this is the clearest Moseic passage about the Messiah, written almost 2000 years before Jesus lived. Think about that…as much time elapsed between when Moses said there would be a Messianic figure as has passed between Jesus and us.

Of course, the most famous messianic passage is Isaiah 53

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

I know Bronwyn cited Isaiah 53 at the end of last quarter, but it simply cannot be left out of a discussion of predictive messianic literature. I have a pretty committed Jewish friend who keeps the shebat and studies the Hebrew scriptures in their original language, and is, on the whole, very serious about his heritage and faith. His given name is David, but every one who knows him call him Dvd (since there are no vowels in Hebrew). As a side note, he tells a great story about how, when DVD’s became the video media of choice, he was perplexed about why his name was suddenly plastered on signs everywhere. He is so serious about it that he will often not watch college football on Saturdays, thought he is a HUGE Texas A&M fan, because he simply doesn’t see contact sports as the kind of thing that should typify a ‘day of rest.’ With all of this said, he has gone back and forth on whether or not Jesus is the Messiah (or as he would say it Jeshua is Messia). At the heart of nagging doubts that Jesus was, in fact, the Jewish Messiah, is Isaiah 53.

Finally, here is one of my favorite ones. Someone once asked me, if God really wanted to foretell the coming of the Messiah precisely, why would he bother with vague symbolic language, why doesn’t he just call him by name. This is obviously problematic, because if you predicted the name of the Messiah everyone who wanted to be Messiah would just take on the name, it is much more powerful to predict the place of his birth (which he would have no control over) – which God did…but I think this verse is really interesting:

"Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak. Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the LORD. Zechariah 6: 11-12

So, the branch is a popular messianic symbol[1] and Joshua, or Jeshuah, can be transliterated into Aramaic as Jesus. So it seems to me that this passage does foretell of Jesus by name. And whether you find those convincing or not, there are literally dozens of them and the cumulative case turns out to be pretty strong.

So, when we, as Christians, say that the OT is about Jesus, we are usually talking about isolate scriptures like this, that appear to be clearly foretelling some future liberator. I like to call it the ‘Easter egg’ version of OT Christology. The prophets are my favorite books of the OT. One of the biggest misconceptions about the prophets is that their primary purpose was foretelling. They actually do very little predicting and a whole lot of what we would call ‘preaching.’ The ‘Easter egg' version of Jesus in the OT scans over vast tracts of text to find these kind of special, predictive, passages. Or to illustrate it another way, when it comes to Jesus, we often read the old testament as if it were a game of ‘find the saltine.’

So I think may people read the old testament like this:

CL Guy: “Isaiah 53”
Stanford: (opens the bible – there is a cracker there) “You, my friend, have found the saltine.”

This doesn’t seem to be the way Jesus approaches the relationship between him and the Hebrew Scriptures. Look at verse 27 again “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” Let me make two brief observations about this. First of all, it takes JESUS, HIMSELF 4 to 6 hours to explain the gospel. The gospel is not a drive by sort of thing. The gospel is not a pithy idea. It is not a bumper sticker or a greeting card. Jesus cannot be reduced to a sound bite. If you want to know what Jesus is all about, you are probably going to have to hang around for a while.

But the main thing I’d like to bring out from this verse is that Jesus believes that HE is the interpretive key of the Old Testament. Let me repeat that. Jesus says that he is the interpretative key to the old testament.

So during the first day of ‘manpacking’ I found that I was only getting about half of the jokes. The jokes that I wasn’t getting appeared to be film references. Now, I fancy myself film savvy so I was mortified that I was missing so many film references. But it turned out that most of them were references to a single movie that I hadn’t seen. It turns out that to understand the humor of college life guys…you require an interpretive key…which turns out to be the movie ‘Dumb and Dumber.’ Without the film, I understood noting. You can mention the ‘Salmon of Capistrano’ all you want, and if I haven’t seen the movie I won’t get the joke.

Jesus tells the random dudes on the seven mile that you must approach the Hebrew scriptures Christologically…otherwise we will end up reading the NT for gospel and the OT for religion. Even Christians tend to read the OT moralistically…looking for lessons for life…Keller calls this the Aesop’s fables approach to the scriptures…we look for a moral of each story and try to do it. He says ‘if you read the bible like this, in the beginning it will be mildly inspirational…but it will eventually crush you to powder. If the Bible is about you it will inspire you for a while and then it will crush you. But if it is about Jesus it will ignite your heart.” But if you read the whole OT Christologically, all of a sudden the gore and bore of Leviticus, which Andy Croch calls “the graveyard of so many good intentions to read straight through the Bible” becomes a beautiful sign post of God’s sublime plan for our rescue in Jesus.

2. Insights On Encountering Jesus

The second major theme I want to bring out of this passage is that there are counter-intuitive insights about how Jesus is known. Epistemology is the philosophical sub-discipline that deals with how we know things. It has been popular for some time for educated people to assert that some form of rationalism or scientific empiricism is the only robust epistemology …or the only way something can be know is by a rational evaluation of the objective evidence. So it has become fashionable for the New Atheists (authors like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchings) to assert that Atheism is the only legitimate world view because their conclusions are rationally derived while spiritual and religious worldviews are based on social or personal influences.

In his book ‘The Reason for God’ Tim Keller reports on his survey of the sociological literature of belief and points out that, according to the best sociology of belief, all beliefs are socially, personally and rationally conditioned. People of all kinds believe things for a wide variety of intellectual, personal and cultural reasons. There is, obviously, much more to say about this, but it is not my topic. What we are interested in today is this passage…and what it says about how Jesus, in particular, is known. Let me make six observations:

i. Jesus takes the initiative.
15As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them;
He always does. Not one of us belongs to him because we sought him out on our own initiative. No major Christian theological system asserts anything else. He always starts it.

ii. They didn’t know it was him
16but they were kept from recognizing him.
Jesus’ work in people’s life is subtle. It often isn’t invasive. He doesn’t generally speak to you audibly as you are brushing your teeth. Jesus could be at work in your life right now, while you are sitting in a lecture hall listening to some dude talk about an old book, and you might not even realize it. You might even be despairing or wondering where God ‘has been.’ In some of the more mystical Christian traditions if you are despairing or facing a particularly dark situation, their prescription will be sustained meditation on this very passage.

iii. Jesus is known, primarily, by the Scriptures, in Community
27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Jesus had risen from the dead, and had not even ascended yet, and already he is pointing his followers to the Scriptures as one of the primary resources for knowing him. But it is not just an individual processing of the scriptures. In this passage, Jesus ‘shows up’ and ‘explains the scriptures’ when they were working these things out between them:
14They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15As they talked and discussed (and the Greek word here is for strenuous discussion or even debate) these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them;
Whether you are a follower of Jesus or just curious about him, the prescription here is to seek him out in the Scriptures, in community. You’ve got to be in some sort of small group that opens up the scriptures and looks at them TOGETHER. And, as a side note, Christianity can ONLY be done in community. If you are going through college on the margins of a Christian community, you are ripping yourself off of what most of us look back at as THE singularly most valuable experience of our lives. I am not going to patronize you by suggesting that these are the best days of your life. I sincerely hope they aren’t. People used to tell me that all the time in college and I used to thing ‘you have got to be kidding me.’ And they were wrong.

But if you take Christian community seriously during your college years, I can almost guarantee you that these will be some of the best friends of your life…because you will attribute significant portions of your spiritual growth directly to them. If you have had trouble connecting, sign up for the retreat…get in a small group for the last 7 weeks of the year…make it happen.

iv. Jesus engages the intellect AND the passions
32They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"
Listen, I am a professional and relatively successful scientist. In an ongoing debate in my field, I take the position of empiricist which puts the emphasis and trust in data over models and paradigms. My life is all about data. I am on schedule finish my fourth degree in the fall and already have the fifth one picked out. I simply want to know as much as I can. But I do not believe that our humanity can be reduced to facts. God fashioned us as complex beings with multiple sensory apparatus. When we approach the gospel, we ask the question, ‘is it true’? But that is actually not enough. We also ask does it work? And is it beautiful? Many of us found that an encounter with Jesus left our passions aflame well before we had answered all our questions. And I’m ok with that…because God made us people…not computers…so it would seem to follow that he would reveal himself to our sense of beauty and meaning as well as our sense of truth.

v. At some point we have to invite him in
28As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. 29But they urged him strongly, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them.

The two random disciples on the road that day still had not put everything together. They still did not realize who it was who was with them. But they did know that this man seemed to have something of value. They invited him in. One of my favorite philosophers is Søren Kierkegaard. His most famous idea is that certainty follows commitment. If you wait to commit until you are certain, you will wander through life always seeking that one last piece of data. Kierkegaard says that God reveals himself in our risky venture towards him. Some of you are at that place. You aren’t sure it is all for real, but there is something about this Jesus character that is attractive to you. You need to invite him in.

vi. Revelation vs Investigation
30When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him…
At the center of a Christian epistemology (thoughts about how we know things) is the idea that God is not known primarily by investigation. We do not figure him out. We believe knowing Jesus is primary a matter of him revealing himself to us. Incidentally, this is why we pray instead of meditating. We participate, as is relatively clear from the passage - he would not have revealed himself unless they had invited him in – but if you are here today and are wondering if the whole Jesus thing is for real, and what’s more, you are wondering how you would even figure out if it is real, I think this passage teaches: invite him in, in the midst of your doubt, pursue the scriptures in community, join a small group, and expect his revelation to be not only to your capacity for understanding, but also to your longings for beauty and meaning.

NT Wright says that this passage is: “a model for a great deal of what being a Christian is all about. The slow, sad dismay at the failure of human hopes; the turning to someone who might or might not help; the discovery that in scripture there lay keys which might unlock the central mysteries and enable us to find the truth; the sudden realization of Jesus himself, present with us, warming our hearts with his truth, showing himself as bread is broken. This describes the experience of innumerable Christians…”

Closing Thought: The Resurrection Changes Everything

Then finally, this passage is, first and foremost, about the Resurrection, which we celebrated just two days ago. The main point of this passage is that the Resurrection changes EVERYTHING.

Check out these two verses

v19b "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.
v52Then they worshiped him

At the beginning of the seven miles, they were despairing.

Verse 17 describes their faces as downcast. Saint Augustine stresses the word ‘had’ in verse 21. ‘We HAD hope.’ Hope is a past tense verb

And they describe Jesus as ‘a prophet’ that they had looked to for political retribution. This is a common view of Jesus’ importance without the resurrection. He WAS and important prophet and if we take him seriously he will guide us to a political Utopia (which will look different if you are a democrat or a republican…but both claim the dead Jesus as their model). It is not surprising that Paul said that if the resurrection didn’t happen we are to be pitied beyond all men…that thing is depressing.

But the resurrection changes everything. Dan and I got together a couple months ago and I asked him what he hoped for me to get out of this passage. He essentially said, ‘I just really love how that passage is a microcosm of the whole story…the very moment that they were sure of their defeat, of death’s victory, was the very moment in which they were walking and chatting with their victorious chamion over death.” The resurrection changes everything. When Jesus shows up among the disciples, and they realize that death did not hold him, that he was indeed raised from the dead, they did not say ‘you are the greatest prophet of all time’…no…they WORSHIPED him. The resurrection changes everything.

Dan said two weeks ago: “The resurrection is a reality that can totally revolutionize your life.” Whether or not you are a Christian. And that is why we are going to spend the last six weeks of the school year unpacking some of the theological and practical implications of the resurrection. The first two weeks will focus on theological applications:

Next week, Dan will talk about the new earth. Anyone close to him knows that this topic has simply captured his imagination. It will be, in some senses, and escatology (last days) talk, but I promise that there will be no charts…just a total reevaluation of what life after death will be like, and what life will be like after that.

The next week I will be back to talk about ‘The New Body.’ And we will look at passages like and including this one, where the resurrected Jesus looks like an ordinary human being, but he is also walking through walls and seemingly teleporting. I will talk about what Jesus’ physical resurrection means for our physical resurrection as well as how we should view our bodies theologically right now…and the implications for work, sleep and sex.

So we’ll talk about ‘The New Earth’ and ‘The New Body’ but then we will spend three weeks on ‘The New Task.’ Jesus doesn’t just show up as a neat trick…he leaves the disciples with marching orders in light of his resurrection in verses 46-48.

46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things.
And so we will break ‘The New Task’ in light of the resurrection into 1) Justice, 2) Evangelism and 3) Beauty and Creativity.

The gospel changes everything. During the seven miles on the road to Emmaus, Jesus turned two kingdom role players from bitter, cynical, followers of a failed prophet, to worshipers of a risen champion over death with a new mission. This is the end of the story of Luke, but the beginning of our story. I hope you will come along with us for the next few weeks.

_____________
[1] Jer 23:5