Easter - A Debunker Debunked

One of the predictable elements of every Easter season here in Silicon Valley (and I'm sure we're not unique) has been our local newspaper publishing one or more articles "debunking" Jesus and/or the Gospels. Of course, the "experts" and "theologians" chosen as sources were exclusively (or almost so) of the viewpoint that nothing can be certainly known about Jesus, if He even existed, and that the Gospels could not have been written by eyewitnesses, but were written a generation later. Known manuscript evidence is more consistent with the Gospels having been written during the first several decades of the church, but when the newspaper story writer picks only skeptics as “authorities”, readers (and possibly the writer) won't know that.

Anyway, in honor of this Easter-Debunker Season, I thought I'd have a little fun by showing how one of the common-debunker sneers falls apart when examined. My meditation for Easter written in 2011, http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/04/meditation-for-easter-sunday.html, looks at the events of that day and its meaning to Christians and the Christian faith. Today I thought I'd go lighter.

One very common claim made to dismiss and ignore the resurrection of Jesus is that the Christian account is merely a rip-off of other religions' resurrection stories. Very well, let's consider the three pagan “resurrection stories” of which early Christians might have been aware and from which they night have been able to draw.

Osiris - Egyptian; not associated with history; key players were gods or divine persons engaged in a power and family (Osiris had sex with his brother's wife/consort) struggle; Osiris' body was dismembered and distributed across Egypt; Osiris' wife Isis found all but one part; with the help of other gods, Osiris' body was preserved and Isis was able to conceive his son, Horus, who succeeded Osiris; annual death-renewal cycle associated with the annual flooding of the Nile.

Tammuz - Mesopotamian; multiple variants of the story; vague/legendary association with history; annual cycle of descent to and return from the realm of the dead (no clear death event) associated with annual season changes (6 months' livable, 6 months of deadly heat); Tammuz was a god (or divine), as was his wife/consort Ishtar; her plea to and a compromise decision by other gods are at the core of the story; this compromise time allowed Tammuz to split time, annually, between the realm of the dead and Ishtar; mourning for Tammuz mentioned briefly in Ezekiel and condemned.

Adonis - Canaanite-Greek-Roman; vague/legendary association with history in some variants; Adonis' parentage/birth may have been divine, involving divine personages or incest; annual death-return cycle associated with spring and emergence of plants after winter; each variant involved a goddess-lover or a love triangle with goddess-lovers and a plea a goddess-lover to and a compromise decision by other gods; this compromise time allowed Adonis to split time, annually, between the realm of the dead and the lover.

By way of contrast, the account of Jesus' life, death and resurrection are set in a very specific place (Galilee and Judea) and time (the reigns of the Roman Emperors Augustus and Tiberius), and include many other verifiable historic details. The Tammuz and Adonis myths (which have similarities substantial enough to suggest the Greeks may have drawn from the Mesopotamians) - some variants, at least - are set in quasi-historical legendary “times”. The myth of Osiris is not set in history.

The course of Jesus' life and death is that of a normal human being, His death happening just once, and his resurrection being a true resurrection to life, with encounters and associations with ordinary people. In the myths of Tammuz and Adonis only one of the two clearly died, neither are truly resurrected, both return only to their lover/consort, and both have to return again to the realm of the dead. Osiris is never resurrected in any sense, but remains in the realm of the dead.

In the myths of Osiris, Tammuz and Adonis, all the players are divine personages. Those around Jesus during His life and at His death and resurrection are all ordinary people.

In the myths of Osiris, Tammuz and Adonis, Osiris, et al, are in an annual and perpetual death-and-return cycle that is tied to the regions' climate and agriculture. Jesus' death and resurrection happened once, and its timing was a particular religious festival in a particular year. Good Friday, Easter and Passover celebrations remember historical events, and are not understood as recapitulations of those events.

In the myths of Tammuz and Adonis, those mythical personages' annual journeys to and from the realm of the dead occurred months apart (according to seasons of the year), and were celebrated/commemorated as such. Jesus' death and resurrection happened days apart and are celebrated/commemorated days apart.

It almost seems superfluous, at this point, to state it in simple terms, but the myths of Osiris, Tammuz and Adonis differ so substantially and systematically from the account of Jesus' death and resurrection as to render skeptics' sneer that Christians ripped off pagan resurrection myths absurd.

As a bonus, being slightly related, I will add that the claim by some who are or claim to be Christian that “Easter” (and therefore the celebration thereof) is pagan, “Easter” being derived from the name of the Mesopotamian Ishtar is also false. The word “Easter” is of Germanic etymology, not Mesopotamian. And the name for what Anglo-Germans call Easter in Romance languages is entirely different, derived from the Latin word for Passover. Similarly, the timing of celebrating Easter is tied to the Jewish religious calendar, not the Mesopotamian religious calendar (is such a calendar even known?).

Saturday Before Easter: More on Christian Unity

I thought it might be good, on this day between Good Friday and Easter, to explore a little further what Jesus prayed for in John 17:22-23: Christian unity. I wrote about this topic at some length back in 2011:

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/06/some-thoughts-on-christian-unity-from.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/06/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/06/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in_25.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/06/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in_27.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/07/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/07/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in_03.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/07/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in_08.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/07/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in_24.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/07/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in_31.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/08/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/08/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in_20.html

http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/08/christian-unity-and-boundaries-in_21.html

Summing it all up briefly (but barely scratching the surface), there is much common ground among Christians, and there are definite boundaries. The immediate context of the verses cited above confirm that there are boundaries - this Christian unity pertains to those who truly are Christian believers. Members of other religions are not bound by Jesus' teaching. That doesn't mean Christians should be hateful or rude to them; the command to love others applies. "Garage Christians" - those who say they are Christians because they attend church but don't really believe in Jesus or what He taught - are not bound by this either, but are to be loved by Christians.

BUT with other Christian believers, I believe Jesus' meaning is that I am obligated to accept and fellowship with another believer to the degree possible. Put another way, the limits should be the circumstances in which we meet and limits set up by the other believer. In practice, at the outset I ask and listen, and I observe. Does a person say that they believe in Jesus? What do they say that means to them? From what can be seen of their behavior and speech, are those consistent with what they say they believe? I don't do it like a lawyer questioning a witness in court, but just in the normal course of conversation and getting to know the person.

What kinds of things would lead me to conclude some one claiming to be a Christian is not, or would preclude or limit fellowship?

• Some one who claimed to be a Christian but rejects the basic teachings of Christianity is not a Christian, and there is no basis for Christian fellowship. As noted above, that's no reason to be hateful or rude; it's just an honest assessment. Depending on circumstances, I may, lovingly, try to share the Gospel with them.
• A person claiming to be a believer, but is unrepentantly living a lifestyle contrary to the basic morals taught in Christianity is some one with whom I cannot fellowship. I may try (with the same qualifications as above) to show them from the scriptures how their lifestyle is contrary to Christian belief and practice and their need for repentance (and possibly for genuine faith).
• The beliefs of a person from a group that believes they are the only true Christians prevent me from having Christian fellowship with them. They think I'm not a Christian. I may try to show them from scripture that all believers, regardless of denomination or affiliation, are Christians.
• The beliefs and pride of a person from a group that believes they are a spiritual elite or in some way better than or superior to believers not in the group place limits on our ability to fellowship. I may try to show them that their feeling of elitism is contrary to scripture.
• The beliefs of a person from a group with peculiar (i.e. special, not necessarily weird) teachings may impose, “don't go there,” or, “go there carefully and respectfully,” limits, but I try to focus on the core that we have in common.

The bottom line for me is that unity and fellowship with fellow Christian believers is not an if-I-feel-like-it option, it's an obligation. Boundaries are where scripture places them; limitations should not originate in me.

Good Friday: Why Did Jesus Do It?

I need to start this off right ... "My name is PeteS, and I am a Chronic Over-Explainer." I'm a life-long member of Over-Explainers Annoymorous, but I'm going to try to hit the key ideas briefly.

The basic answer to the title question is found in the natures of God and man. God is righteous, just and love; God is a Creator. In saying that God is a Creator, I mean more than that He created our universe. It means that the universe was an expression of God being a Creator.

God created man with the ability to choose - to obey or disobey, to love or not love - his Creator. Those choices would have consequences, and with the first man's choice to disobey that changed his and his descendants' nature from good to not good, i.e. sinful.

With that choice made, God's justice would not allow Him to allow or force mankind to spend eternity in the presence of the God mankind had rejected. God's righteousness would not allow Him to tolerate sin in His presence. As Creator and One Who loves His creation, God would not do nothing, a this would consign all His human creatures to an eternity separated from Him.

The "something" God did was Jesus. Fully human, yet still God; truly good, yet sadistically punished as the worst of criminals; Jesus life and death satisfied God's righteousness and justice for as many as believe in Him. Persons who acknowledge their need before God and put their full trust in what Jesus did are forgiven and will be with God in eternity. Jesus' life, sufferings and death were substitutionary. That Jesus was at once human and God is essential. Jesus led a sinless life while subjected to all the temptations humans face, but was nevertheless punished as if he were a sinner - human for human substitution. Jesus was also God, making the "value" of that substitution, and extending it to, as many as believe. God's love is proffered. This why why Hebrews 12:2 says of Jesus, "who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame." Believers being redeemed so that they could be with Him in eternity was the "joy" Jesus had in prospect.

Bible "Heroes"

I've been reading recently in Genesis and Exodus. People like Abraham and Moses tend to get portrayed a bit unrealistically. To be sure, they were men of faith, used by God. They were also normal human beings, with quirks and faults. Abraham was so fearful of being one household sojourning in a larger nation that he had Sarah tell people he was her brother. This led to a serious mess ... twice! Later, Isaac, Abraham's son did the same thing, with much the same result. Isaac's son, Jacob, was a deceptive, weaseling, wheeler-dealer. Two of Jacob's sons wiped out all the men in a small town in revenge for the son of the town's chief having raped their sister. Jacob's oldest son slept with one of Jacob's wives. Ten of Jacob's sons sold their half-brother into slavery. Moses was a fearful conflict avoider.

Taken together - their faults and their faith - maybe there's hope for me!

Maundy Thursday: Servant Leaders, Unity, and the Holy Spirit

Passover eve must have had a lot of mixed feelings for Jesus. He knew this would be His last such celebration with these 12 men with whom He had shared the past 3 years. Jesus knew what agony was ahead of Him. Jesus knew He was about to be betrayed, and by whom. Jesus knew there still were important things to teach His disciples, and some reassurances He needed to communicate. All in just a few hours!

As an aside, if it isn't already obvious, this is not going to be a normal Maundy Thursday message. But I wanted the meditations for this year to look at what Jesus was thinking, and that is what I will try to do do in this.

These men were to become the leadership core for the church - His body. Jesus knew that the type of leadership with which they were familiar would not be right. The world around them had leaders that ordered around and kept above those they led. Taking advantage of their host's lapse in proper hospitality, Jesus showed His disciples what spiritual leadership should look like. And then He taught them.

Unlike "normal" leaders and rulers, leaders in the church are to serve those they lead. The purpose of church leadership is not to sustain and grow one's own authority or to support and perpetuate an institution. The purpose of the church is to make disciples, to enable new Christians to grow so that they become disciple-makers and leaders. Leadership that helps believers learn and grow spiritually means working with them and serving them, not aloofly lording it over them.

Jesus was also trying to prepare His disciples both for His death, which, for a few days, would feel to them as if He were gone, and then His ascension to heaven, when His presence with them would be less obvious and visible. Toward these ends, Jesus tried to let them know of His coming death, and promised that they would not be alone, but that the Holy Spirit would be with them, dwell in them, teach them, and empower them when Jesus would no longer be visibly present. They probably didn't understand at that point much of what Jesus was telling them, but He knew they would recall it when the time came.

John 17 is commonly called Jesus' "High Priestly Prayer", because Jesus was interceding, as their leader, for His followers, present and for all time to come. One thing for which He prayed was that His followers would be in unity. It's not exactly a brilliant observation that Christians, for more than 14 centuries, have not obeyed this imperative. Personally, I think many believers (past and present) have a skewed vision of what Jesus meant.

Taking the New Testament as a whole, Jesus and the writers of the New Testament neither prescribed institutional authority structures nor proscribed spiritual authority entirely. The church the New Testament reveals was, to use a modern term, a network of relationships and giftings, with authority structure that was local and as needed. To use Paul as an example: most of his letters were to people he had worked with and churches he had started (direct relationship); two of his letters, Galatians and Colossians, were to churches in cities he had never visited, but the authority of his letters rested on their recognition of his being an apostle (his gifting, Ephesians 4:11); Paul's MO in ministry was to come into a town, evangelize, organize new believers into a congregation and teach them their faith, appoint leaders in the congregation, move on to the next town while keeping in touch with the church he had started, and keep repeating. When a church in a city grew large enough there would be multiple congregations whose leaders had relationships with each other, usually with a leader who was apparently called a bishop. But regional, national and church-wide structures came later.

Getting back to Jesus' actual point, He wanted believers to minister (serve!) and fellowship in unity. This is far more difficult, meaningful and powerful than having a single authority structure. It requires people of different giftings, personalities and cultures to learn to get along and work together, using those differences for ministry rather than for carrying on personal squabbles. Think it can't be done? The church in the New Testament exploded in the Roman Empire, reaching and uniting peoples of multiple languages, cultures and economic status. Many para-church ministries today unite the efforts of believers of similar diversity and denominational background. It can be done today. It is powerful! It is what Jesus asked for in prayer!

Wednesday Before Easter: Looking Toward the Near and Distant Future

Looking Forward, and Really Forward

 As they left the temple area, Jesus' disciples indulged in a bit of sight-seeing. The temple of Jerusalem, as rebuilt by Herod the Great, was reputed to have been magnificent. That a monster like Herod could create such beauty shows that creativity and moral excellence have no necessary connection. At any rate, there was much beauty that could be admired, but Jesus responded to them in a way they may not have anticipated. Jesus informed them that the time was soon coming that the temple would be destroyed, and even the stones would be pulled apart. This latter was literally fulfilled by the Roman looters, who were after the gold that had melted in the fire and flowed between the stones.

At this, the disciples asked Jesus about the time of the end, the time of His coming and when the things He had just spoken of would happen. Whether and how they understood what they were asking is an interesting question. And Jesus' answer has been a center of much disagreement as to how much of what He said referred to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (then some 45 years in the future) and how much was about what we sometimes call the "end times". I don't have anything profound or insightful to offer on those issues. It's in God's hands, and I trust him concerning those matters. It's pretty clear to me that Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 24 mixes elements that pertain to both time frames, and some elements may pertain to both.

In Matthew 24, Jesus is at least partly concerned with the safety of His people, those who would become believers soon after His resurrection and ascension. He did not want them to get caught up in the destruction of Jerusalem. He also wanted believers in the distant future to know what kinds of things to expect so they also could act wisely.

Prepared, Engaged and Serving

Though delivered as parables, Jesus' thoughts in Matthew 25 are a bit more clear. In the parable of the lamps and oil, the message is that believers must be prepared for Him to return at any time. In the parable of the talents, Jesus is instructing believers to use their talents - risking them in the marketplace of ideas and people, as it were - rather than hiding those talents and keeping them "safe". And in the third Jesus pointed out that believers are to serve, to extend God's love to people, to be Jesus' hands and feet in this world. Where Matthew 24 was about things Jesus followers could and cannot avert, Matthew 25 has to do with how we choose to live.

Put together, Matthew chapters 24 and 25 show that Jesus was concerned for His followers' safety and that they be in this world what a believer should be. And as for prophetic speculation, besides Jesus stating that no one knows the time of His return, I think "just" being faithful to Him and being what we should be as believers is quite enough without diving into date setting or charting out just what God "should" do in the "end times". We should entrust to God those things we cannot control or avert and focus on what we should be.

Tuesday Before Easter: Challenge and Counter-Challenge; Bible Jeopardy

First Century Jewish culture had several subcultures, and we see a least three in these challenges. The Pharisees were ultra-orthodox, with many additional traditions that were intended to make breaking a law "impossible". The Sadducees were less orthodox, did not recognize the writings of the prophets as having authority equal to the Law of Moses, and were willing to accommodate (sometimes a euphemism for "compromise") Graeco-Roman culture. The Herodians were politically aligned with the family of Herod, and through them, with Rome. The Pharisees believed the Jews should be independent and a regional power, so they and the Herodians would have clashed as political opposites.
 
Pharisees' & Herodians' Challenge, Matthew 22:15-22 
This challenge was fishy on its face. To be sure, the issue they posed to Jesus was one over which they would have argued, bitterly. But that they came to Jesus together, so that the opponents of what they thought were the only two possible answers were both present suggests some pragmatic collusion (both parties saw Jesus as a threat).
 
Jesus' answer reflected that He understood what they were up to, yet He still answered their question. And His answer - that God and government both have valid, non-conflicting, claims on people living under them - satisfied neither party, yet left them no room for retort. In delineating the proper, scriptural, relationship for a follower of God with God and government, Jesus answered the challenge, demonstrated that He understood the scriptures, and gave a clear principle to follow for believers in centuries to com.
 
Sadducees' Challenge, Matthew 22:23-33
The Sadducees came with a challenge that they thought showed that the idea of a resurrection (which they denied and Jesus had taught) conflicted with the Law of Moses. Evidently they thought they could confuse Jesus with a nitpicking, detailed, hypothetical situation. Instead of being confused by or entangled in the details Jesus showed them that they didn't understand the very scriptures they claimed to believe. Jesus' directness in pointing out their ignorance suggests to me that Jesus knew they didn't really care to understand the Law, except as it suited their purposes - following it outwardly when convenient, weaseling it when not, and using it as a clumsy weapon when faced with some one who disagreed with them.
 
Pharisees' Second Challenge, Matthew 22:34-40
The Pharisees' second challenge puzzles me. This was a very basic question, one a very young student should know how to answer! Did they think Jesus too educated to know? Did they think He was so deep into subtleties and details that He would not recognize the question as basic? Had they run out of "tough" questions but were not ready to beat a retreat? Regardless, Jesus gave them the correct answer, demonstrating both His knowledge and presence of mind under pressure. And Jesus used this and the previous questions as a springboard for his counter-challenge.
 
Jesus' Poser, Matthew 22:41-46
At least part of what the religious leaders had been doing had to do with their idea that Jesus was just a semi-educated bumpkin. The Jews in that day had a very rigorous process for selecting and training youth so that those who became teachers were the best of then best of the best. Jesus hadn't made the grade. Jesus had already turned this image against them in His responses to their questions, and now He put these "educated" leaders on the spot. Jesus had hit them in their public image, for the hypocrisy in their lives, and for their real heritage and character. Now Jesus hit them in what was supposedly their area of expertise, their knowledge and understanding of scripture.

His question was deceptively simple, in a couple of ways. The particular scriptures were very familiar, but they probably had never noticed - or just didn't bother to think about. Worse still, the answer to Jesus' question, the meaning of the two scriptures didn't fit their image of the kind of Messiah they wanted. And was consistent with things Jesus had claimed about Himself.
That shut the leaders up! What they imagined they could do to Jesus, He had done to them! And Jesus wasn't done with them!
 
Jesus' Condemnations: Religious leaders, Matthew 23:1-36; Jerusalem, Matthew 23:37-39
Jesus! Lit! Into! Them! He called them hypocrites, children of hell, blind guides, white washed tombs, descendants of murderers, brood of vipers! Do I need to say what He was thinking? He said exactly what He was thinking! Jesus told the religious leaders exactly what they were. Jesus warned the people just who they were following. And Jesus warned his disciples what dealings with those leaders would be like. Jesus ended this drama with a lament over Jerusalem and its looming fate, and then He left the temple.

All in all, this shows us that Jesus wasn't the dreamy idealist flower-smeller some imagine Him to have been. One can believe Jesus to have been a religion-crazed semi-lunatic (you have to ignore large parts of the Gospels), or one can believe Jesus acted in righteous and just anger (which is consistent with the rest of the Gospels), but dreamy idealist flower-smeller is excluded by Jesus actions and words on this day.

Monday Before Easter: Jesus Faces Down the Jewish Religious Leaders

Challenge and Counter-Challenge of Authority, Matthew 21:23-27
This was the start of an interesting drama. The Jewish religious leaders decided to use what they imagined to be a trap that would silence or ensnare Jesus. Jesus was, in their view, an uneducated nobody. They could hardly imagine Him sensing the trap, let alone avoiding it. Jesus turned their trap on them and put them in a multi-lemma: if they said that John was sent by God they would be asked why they didn't obey; if they said that John was speaking for himself they would be in trouble with the common people; if they answered, "We asked first," they would look petty and childish; if they answered, "We don't know," they would lose the people's respect. They chose the latter. It was the least damaging, but it was damaging! And they knew it!

It's almost silly to say this, but don't try to lie to, fool, or "outsmart" God. He. Knows. And as Jesus did in this encounter, God will use our lies and tricks, if we try any, to His purposes. Far better, in our relationship with God, to be honest, open and submitting to His purposes. When it comes to what is best for us, He knows that, too.

My Two Sons - Saying vs. Doing, Matthew 21:28-32
In response to their first attack, Jesus counter-attacked with a series of parables. This time Jesus isn't "just" replying and moving on. Keep in mind that this was all done in the temple, in front of as many people who chose to listen! Jesus responded, and escalated His challenge, by means of several parables. With this first parable, of one son who said he would obey his father but didn't, while the other son said he would not but did, Jesus struck at the religious leaders' hypocrisy. They made the profession that they followed God, but in their lives they did not. Meanwhile, "sinners" (which they really were!) despised by the hypocritical religious leaders would turn from their sin and follow God.

Jesus' thinking here is pretty plain on its face. Jesus is challenging the religious leaders. Specifically, this parable strikes at how the public perceived them, public respect, and as I said above, in a very public place.
 
The Murderous Tenants, Matthew 21:33-46
The Wedding Feast & Unworthy Invitees, Matthew 22:1-14
In these two parables Jesus showed the real character of the religious leaders: rebellious; murderous; out for personal gain; concerned with their own business rather than God's. Jesus' intent, again, is pretty plain. He confronted the religious leaders with what they are. And did it in front of the ordinary people who looked to them as leaders. He gave them a choice - and it truly was a choice - they could repent, give up their racket, or they could resist Jesus to keep their racket going (though Jesus knew it would end very soon). Sadly, they made the prideful and greedy choice.

In this, Jesus went for the religious leaders' metaphoric jugular. They had bent, spindled, folded and mutilated what should have been service to God and the Jewish people into a very cozy and profitable racket. Jesus hoped that, by rocking their tidy little world, some - people and leaders - would turn to God. Eventually and over time, many did. Jesus knew the pain all this would cost Him; He also knew that the reward was far greater.

Palm Sunday: Fame & Afflicting the Comfortable

A theme commonly preached in Palm Sunday sermons is how shallow and brief popularity can be. And it's true. How many movie, TV and pop music stars that were hot 5 or 10 years ago have self-destructed or disappeared when "their" public moved on to the next to the next "big thing"? But what Jesus did was no blind accident. Jesus knew what was about to happen - the whole week, not just the day we call Palm Sunday. He could have - and had done so before - entered Jerusalem quietly. He chose instead to enter in a way that would attract lots of attention.

I believe Jesus had at least two purposes in mind. He wanted the attention of as many ears as possible. Many would just forget what they heard almost as soon as they heard it. Some would even be calling out, "Crucify him!" at the end of the week. But Jesus was planting seeds, seeds that might only germinate months or even years later. He wanted as many as possible to hear his preaching and teaching so that some would later become His followers. Jesus was also posing a challenge to the Jewish religious leaders. They could: stand by and "watch" their following, their power and wealth, melt away; swallow their pride and join Jesus; take drastic action. They chose the latter. Jesus knew what their choice would be - He had escaped previous attempts to seize him. This time He would not try. But the religious leaders still faced and made a real choice (and not all Jewish religious leaders agreed with the choice of the majority), they were not actors following a script.

Fame and obscurity come and go. Sometimes we seek them, more often (I think) they just come. They can be blessings or curses. If we use either to indulge ourselves, it is a mistake (or worse). The number of celebrities who achieve fame and then quickly self-destruct demonstrate this. They arrogantly think they are all their fame makes them appear to be plus indestructible. A better approach, that Jesus used, it to use celebrity and obscurity as opportunities - for service, for developing one's relationships with God, family and friends. Don't waste fame in pride and self-indulgence; don't waste obscurity through laziness.

On entering Jerusalem, Jesus didn't hustle off to the local Holiday Inn, settle into His room, and order room service. Jesus went to the temple, where even more people would see and hear Him. And would they ever! Jesus cleaned house!

 As odd and silly as it seems, it was only just a couple of days ago in re-reading this incident that I noticed that it didn't end with Jesus driving the crooks out of the temple. That "house-cleaning" is so commonly taught that I had a sort of tunnel vision. Anyway, on to what I think Jesus was thinking.

In driving out the crooks, part of Jesus' intent obviously was just that, "cleansing" the temple. Thievery in the midst of God's temple was an utter outrage! So Jesus took care of business. But even this was not that "simple". Jesus had been in the temple many times, and doubtless had seen these crooks just about as often (and had driven out the fraudsters once before, in John 2). But he didn't drive them out every time, so why now? These crooks were part of the religious leaders' racket. They were allowed their fraud, and kicked back to the leaders. Jesus knew what was going on! So, Jesus' purpose wasn't "just" to cleanse the temple. Jesus chose this time - when Passover pilgrims multiplied the population of Jerusalem and thronged the temple - to strike a blow to their racket at the religious leaders' most profitable time of the year! This was another direct challenge to their racket!

Having driven out the fraudsters, Jesus didn't dust off His hands and go have dinner. He stayed, teaching the people around Him who would listen, and healed sick people who were brought to Him (which probably caught a lot of attention and inspired interest). Jesus didn't merely smash up the racket - He knew they would be back. He offered the people an alternative, meeting them where they were, needs, "warts", and all. Driving off the fraudsters cut into the religious leaders' profits, for a few hours. That was bad enough and reason enough to get rid of Jesus. But offering (being!) an alternative was a threat to their whole cozy system, and they decided not stand for that!

All four Gospels recount aspects of the events of Palm Sunday: Matthew 21, Mark 11, Luke 19, and John 12.

A Challenging Book With Multiple Layers of Meaning

I've recently been reading a book titled The Heavenly Man, the spiritual biography of a Chinese Christian leader called Brother Yun. I'm finding it scary, convicting, challenging and more. It speaks to me on multiple levels.

First and most obvious, it tells of his extreme sufferings for being an uncompromising Christian and a Christian leader. Like any authoritarian state, China's Communists tolerate no other loyalties among Chinese citizens than to the state. Christians' loyalty and faith in God squarely challenge this demand. Those who openly refuse to give this loyalty and who urge others toward faith in Jesus are persecuted, often with incredible cruelty and brutality. While Brother Yun details much of the brutality to which he was subjected, he avoids glorifying himself, doing it "pornographically", or trying to incite the reader to hatred. This is the scary level.

Then there's the amazing level of the book. A reader is continually faced with a choice. Is Brother Yun a wild-eyed liar making claims that are beyond crazy-outlandish? Or did God do amazing things in, to, and through Brother Yun? This isn't "just" claims of numerous healings. He mentions healing as happening, but briefly, almost in passing. Brother Yun speaks of a food and water fast that is physiologically impossible. He speaks of incredible escapes. Well, I won't keep going, except to say that I see no ground between the choices of lying lunatic or God doing amazing things. I choose the latter. And again I should mention that Brother Yun does not speak of such miraculous things in a self-aggrandizing way.

A Different World, Layer 1, Christians in the US live in a very different world than that of Chinese Christians! First, to us (US), government officials manipulating and changing zoning laws to suppress church growth or using Christian beliefs as probable cause to investigate anonymously reported child abuse allegations is persecution. And it is. In China, persecution is arbitrary arrests and detention, beating Christians to near death (or death), confiscating a family's means of sustenance (e.g. food, clothes, cooking utensils) and more. This, too, is persecution, but it feels like a different, stronger word should be used! Christians in the US do not know "real" persecution, but still should endeavor to retain our current freedoms.

A Different World, Layer 2, US Christians live in incredible prosperity, ease, and freedom; many/most Chinese Christians live in poverty (+/- a "dire"), have to work hard to survive, and live under government oppression. Knowing why God "permits" this is beyond my understanding. It is reality, and my whining at not knowing isn't going to change that reality. But, do I live my life as if it doesn't matter, it's some one else's problem? Or do I consider what responsibilities, what Divine expectations, might be attached to my freedom and relative prosperity? And I'm an ordinary person, with little influence. How can I, in any meaningful way, help my brothers and sisters in Christ? Prayer is significant, costs almost nothing, and requires little influence or outside contacts beyond having a relationship with God. Prayer is incredibly significant, but do my other means - material things, freedom - entail a further responsibility to act? I think the answer is, "Yes!"

And in this, "Yes!" lies, I think, at least part of the answer to the, "Why?" question. Christians in China have the same faith and serve the same Lord. And that same Lord is moving things and people according to His purposes. God did not create each of us identical. With our different personalities, talents and giftings, God places each of us in different places, with different challenges and ministries to be faithful in and to. Together we fulfill God's purposes, each playing an important and interconnected part.

I see an important lesson and questions for the US and Western church.

The lesson layer is a, "What if?" While the church in Europe and the US has lived in degrees of peace and comfort for centuries, there is no guarantee this will not change, even possibly drastically. So, what if "real" persecution starts in the US - actual violence inflicted or tolerated by the government? With centuries of freedom and ease, the church has organized itself and done what it does in ways that would bring swift destruction and dismemberment. In the US very many churches are large or huge congregations, have highly educated full-time pastors, and meet in special-purpose (often highly visible) buildings. In freedom, this can be very effective. If persecution came, however, the small number (relatively) of leaders, members' dependence on their training and dependence on special-use buildings would all make disrupting the church in the US relatively easy. In China the church has broad leadership, small groups that meet secretly and mobility. These combine to make it more difficult to disrupt the church: minimizing damage while forcing significant effort even to achieve that. I think it would be wise for the church in the US to broaden its leadership and add small home groups to the core of its congregational activities. Interestingly, this is, I think, what the church was like in New Testament times.

Easter Week Meditations; the Saturday Before Palm Sunday

It's been two years or so since I wrote a series of meditations on the events of Easter Week. And that was my focus: understanding the events as they connected and led to each other; understanding the context of those events. This post starts a new series, about what I think Jesus had in mind as He lived that "last" week of His earthly life. It represents my opinion, based on Scripture, Jesus purpose, and human nature.

My major assumption is simple, demonstrably true in the Gospels. Jesus did not walk blindly into a week of painful surprises. Each step of the way Jesus instigated or purposively walked into what was about to unfold. He acted with intent, focused on His purposes, rather than reacting to people, words and actions where He happened to be. What were His purposes? What was He hoping to accomplish?

Should anyone be interested, the set of meditations I referred to above were in April, 2011, and the post for the Saturday before Palm Sunday is here: http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/04/easter-week-meditations-intro.html.

Spong'ed, Part Whatever

About a year and a half ago I started reading Why Christianity Must Change Or Die, by John Shelby Spong. My purpose had to do with apologetics rather than because I expected I might agree with him about much of anything. My expectations proved accurate. After a couple of months my loss of patience with it and changing personal activities led to my putting the book aside.

Reading things with which I disagree is not a problem for me, if I have a reason for it. The problem I had with Spong's book, over which I lost patience - was his, to be blunt, dishonesty. Argument tactics such as denigrating one's opponent(s) (aka ad hominem attacks) and misrepresenting one's opponents' views for the purpose of falsely making the opponents' views look foolish or easily refuted (straw man arguments) are common tactics. And fallacious and dishonest. J. S. Spong, given his education, would know this. Yet Change or Die is riddled with just such denigrations and misrepresentations.

This is a long introduction to saying that I have resumed reading Spong's book. And already I'm waxing verbose. I'm not finding his views or rhetoric any more agreeable, but I now have a bit more time for reading. As a result, several things have caught my eye that I think worth blogging about.

Rather than make this a reeeeeeeally long post, I will point out several themes that about which I will post further in coming days or weeks. J. S. Spong's core idea is that he wants his religion to be moldable into whatever he wants it to be, yet still call it "Christianity", as if "Christianity" were utterly undefined. Of course, that puts several inconvenient things athwart his path, things he must clear his from path to making religion what he wants it to be.

The first obstacle (my word choice), in the order he presents it, is the idea that God is in any sense a person. Spong wants his god totally malleable and utterly undemanding. Having a God Who designed the universe and humans would, in revealing Himself, define Himself. Such a God would also have the right to say what things are right and wrong, and call for and define loyalty to Himself. Much too much like God as "Fundamentalists" understand God to be! I already touched on some of J. S. Spong's denigration of the idea that God is a person in these two blog posts: http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/10/sponged-attributes-of-god-or-you-can.html and http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/10/sponged-of-god-and-scarecrows.html. Spong's second target is the Bible. Since this has from its beginning defined Christianity - and is thus utterly too confining and "narrow" for his liking - Spong dismisses it. And then there's Jesus. The Jesus of the Gospels is much too limiting! Spong needs a "Jesus" who is utterly moldable and malleable into whatever Spong needs and wants him to be. If anything is really known to be true of Jesus and of what Jesus taught, it would interfere with the flights of Spong's religious fancies.

Absolutely Relative

Many folks like to say they don't believe in moral absolutes. Maybe it's supposed to sound tolerant and open-minded. Or maybe absolutes are inconvenient to them. At any rate, there are problems with such claim, in principle and in application.

At the level of principle, to say there are no absolutes is self-contradictory. Saying there are no moral absolutes is, itself, stating a moral absolute.

And people who are wont to say this tend to show in practice that they don't really believe. Let some one steal something from them or hurt them and they will demonstrate what they really believe.

Another point at which moral relativism breaks down is with what might be called human monsters. By this I mean heinously murderous leaders such as Adolph Hitler, or Joseph Stalin, or Pol Pot (I could keep going) or terrorists or more "ordinary" serial killers or rapists. If there truly are no absolutes, there is no basis to condemn or take such monsters out of this world. None! And to do so is an act every bit as criminal as each crime they committed!

Moral relativism can be made to sound nice and fuzzy and tolerant, but reality and real life are not very kind to it. Moral relativism doesn't really work, and even those who claim to believe it readily show they do not.