broken eikon

So I was reading the Presbyterian book of confessions today. I came across the confession of 1967, and I have to say… I was blown away. In 1967, the Presbos adopted this confession of faith as a response to “racial discrimination, nationalistic arrogance, and family and class conflict”.  It was very responsive to biblical scholarship and  asks the church to read scripture with literary and historical context in mind. There are many really really cool parts, but this really stuck out to me is line 9.45, containing the following words…, “this search (for reconciliation and peace) requires that the nations pursue fresh and responsible relations across every line of conflict, even at risk to national security, to reduce areas of strife and to broaden international understanding… Although nations may serve God’s purposes in history, the church which identifies the sovereignty of any one nation or any one way of life with the cause of God denies the lordship of Christ and betrays his calling”.

“Even at risk to national security”?

Can anyone find me another statement of faith that states that nations should pursue reconciliation even at their own risk? That sounds too much like Christ for me…

And that last part about identifying any one nation or way of life with God’s will means denying the Lordship of Christ. Dang.

love it…

This article by Micheal Moore is really good. Don’t get me wrong, I am not what you would consider a fan of his. Even when I want to like him, I struggle to find him compelling. But when someone, anyone, gets Jesus right, I am committed to being the trumpeter. So check it out.

John 10:7 says Jesus is the door. As we all know, doors are made from wood. So Jesus, if you take the Bible as God’s word, is made of wood. Now, here is the freaky part. According to the church councils of the 4th century, Jesus is the same substance as God. Therefore, follow me here… God is made of wood. Now to take it to a whole other level. The Holy Spirit, according to those same councils, is the same substance as the Father and Christ. Now…ready?… The Spirit is the same word in Hebrew for breath. Therefore, Jesus=door=wood=God=wood=Spirit=wood=Spirit=breath. Jesus had to breath. Jesus was a breath cannibal. He breathed in himself, which was wood. And since we know humans don’t breathe wood, Jesus was not human.

Thank you for indulging me on this particular piece of stupidity.

I was considering communion (read: Eucharist, Lord’s Supper) this morning and put some things together in rapid succession in my head, so I wrote them down on a bulletin.

Do we really understand what we are doing when we take communion? I assume (completely unscientifically) that most people would say, “remembering Jesus”.  And this is as good an answer as any. But is it close to the whole truth? You see, communion didn’t start with Jesus. It started long before. In Egypt.

In Egypt, we were slaves. Then God brought us out with a mighty show of power. The Passover.  Where the blood of an innocent lamb was spilled to show who we belong to. We baked bread with no leaven and ate with our sandals on. Leaven was a symbol of sin, and we kept sandals on to show we must be ready to leave at any moment when God called us. So we celebrate the passover every year to remember how God saved us from slavery. And every year, we renew our commitment to God and God’s people and our place in this story.

You would say, “Chad, I wasn’t there. God didn’t rescue me from Egypt. And I don’t celebrate Passover. Why did you keep saying we?”

That’s the whole point. We don’t say these things. We don’t celebrate passover. We don’t use words like “we” when we talk about this story. That is why we miss the point of communion so many times. Jesus was not eating “communion” or “the Lord’s supper” or “Eucharist” with his followers. He was celebrating Passover. All of the meaning that went into it and came out of it was born in the story of the first passover. Jesus and his disciples would have recounted the story, using “we” and “us”. They would have showed union with God’s people before them. God didn’t rescue their ancestors, God rescued THEM.

Jesus now said HE was the new lamb. HIS blood made the new covenant. The bread was HIM, no leaven. Jesus was not giving us a new story and ritual, he reinterpreted the old story, and gave it new meaning. So now, we look back at how God rescued US from slavery, how we eat “bread” without sin, and instead of sandals on, we have instead taken to washing feet that were dirty from the journey.

Some thoughts. Communion often is seen as “personal, Jesus and me time”. Of course, it can be that. And powerfully so. But closer to the older, truer, deeper meaning is the opposite. It is not personal time. It is renewing your place in the community of those redeemed by God. Thus, the word “communion”. Togetherness.

Bread: If possible, try for unleavened. The symbolism is too good not to.

The cup:  Wine is what Jesus used. It has antioxidants that are really good for you. It is a little bitter and a little sweet. Like the death of the lamb. And Christ. Juice is acceptable too, providing you come up with a better reason than, “alcohol is bad.

Check out this article in the NY Times. I know where I stand on health care reform. I am getting pretty tired of special interests and lie-machines getting in the way of reform. I have been thinking about this for a while. We have set up a system where simply because someone is wealthier than someone else, they will get to live longer, despite their life choices (I think of many famous people who get pushed to the front of the line for kidney transplants after a life of abusing their bodies). I used to be on the other side of the fence. You know what changed my opinion? Becoming poor. Working multiple jobs and trying to go to school with a disabled wife and 2 kids. And pay health insurance? Heh. You know how I have health insurance? The Presbos. First Presbyterian of Granbury pays for my medical insurance. I digress. The right to life and how long you live should not be determined by how wealthy you are.

Another note: many fiscal conservatives (I am not referring to pro-life, yay God social conservatives) say they like the idea of competition in business because it drives them to make better products at cheaper prices in order to compete. They are lying. That is really what the public option is about. Breaking the oligopoly that exists now in health care and producing a public (read: not socialist) option for people to go to. So there. I took a stand on an issue. I am not pro-Obama, or anti-Obama. I simply think that this is the most Christlike thing to do, given the options presented.

Argue. Discuss.

In his sermon on the mount, Jesus informs us that Kingdom living involves letting go of our anger and contempt for others. I realized while I was preparing to preach about that, I had someone who was angry with me, and part of the problem was my anger and contemptible attitude. Therefore I

was convicted to “leave my gift at the altar” and reconcile with this person. I tried to call him, but I had the wrong number, so I emailed him. Here is the conversation:

On Apr 27, 2009, at 4:08 PM, you wrote:

Mr. X,
My name is Chad from Lone Star Comics in Fort Worth. I was told from
Cass, our manager, that you came in and let him know of your
displeasure with my service. A week or so afterward, I saw you
outside the store, and you called “F-You!” and gave me the finger. I
could not figure out why you had such a hostile attitude towards me
or what I had done to offend you. A few times you mentioned my
poilitics, but I didn’t remember having a conversation about that.
It took me a little bit, but I believe I do remember having a
conversation with you sometime. At any rate, I wanted to apologize
to you for any rudeness I may have given you or any way in which I
was disrespectful. I hope you can forgive me for my poor choice of
words and poor attitude towards you. This is coming from me, not
Lone Star. Thanks.
Chad
from Lone Star

His response was a follows:

Hi Chad,

I was the one that was too harsh the other day. I was not in a very
good mood and even if I have issues with you on the political side I
should not have yelled out.

I think we do not mix well but I have found that people can often find
common ground after events like this.

Yes I do accept your apology and I offer you mine as well. We should
just take a step back.

Thanks for taking the time,

X X

I wrote back that I look forward to seeing him again and that there is a firm handshake waiting… Apparently Jesus knows what he is talking about.

Over here at Brian McLaren’s blog, he posted about a conference he was attending this weekend. Check it out. This line however struck me as very very very encouraging (and if you have been in Bible study with me at all or heard me preach, you know why this excites me):

Speaking about the priorities that revelealed themselves in the emerging movement of Christianty, his first priority was this:

“1. A fresh vision of Jesus, rooted in the canonical gospels rather than in later theological debates. This fresh vision of Jesus and the kingdom of God brings a new perspective on Paul and the whole Bible as well.”

All I can say is right freakin’ on.

So I had this idea a while back when I was taking a Gospels class. We were talking about how the stories of Jesus existed before they were actually written down. Many small stories of Jesus, called pericopes (peh-rick-oh-pees), were eventually collected and arranged by the gospel writers to suit their needs in composing their gospels.

Each of these gospel writers (classically called the Evangelists) had their own agenda in composing their gospels and had their own reasons for including certain pericopes and leaving others out. Of course, like John says, it isn’t possible for a single ancient book to collect everything related to Jesus, so this process seems like it was not only expedient for the Evangelists, but necessary.

I usually tend to think it is better to try and be like the Apostles, rather than just listen to them, and so finally my thought is this:

What would it look like for a person or a community to take all known pericopes of Jesus (or more?) and formulate them, like the Evengelists did, into a coherent “gospel” by which they could use like the Evangelists did and for the purpose they intended? What has stopped me is twofold. First, I thought if I did it by myself, which sounds like a lot of fun, it would be very presumptuous and probably very arrogant sounding. Second, if done in a group, it would take so much time as to be unwieldy and tedious (approx. 367 pericopes).

So after a couple of years of sitting on this, I would like to know what you all think about this idea.

Thanks.

For a pretty scholarly take on Messiahship in John’s gospel as it relates to the prophet Zechariah, check out my boy Rodney’s paper here.

First, not overwhelming, but good use of Greek.

Second, very impressed you refered to and made something of metonymic intertextuality. I picked up that interpretive tool from people much scmarter than me and it seems Rabbis used it quite a bit, as did Jesus.

Third, very important point – the LXX version lends itself MUCH more to messianic expectation and interpretation that did (does) the Hebrew texts. Good point, Rod.

Fourth, My heart smiles whenever someone quotes Brueggeman.

Last, ironic that my wife watched a show on angels and demons on Biography channel the other day. Lots of it was from intertestemental apocraphal literature, i.e. 1 Enoch. Apparently, in Enoch it is made much of that the devil is indeed one of God’s court, who simply is annoyed with humanity and lives to accuse them, but in no way is antagonistic towards God. Good point regarding the contrast with John’s gospel.

Good paper, bro. 1 step closer to getting published big time!

Since John’s gospel is coming from a different place and time than the synoptic gospels, this paper reflects not necessarily my belief, but rather what John’s gospel has to say about Jesus’ relationship with the Jewish temple. It has some good historical nuggets, too for you history buffs. I think I lean towards understanding Jesus’ relationship with the temple like Mark suggests, i.e. Jesus acts in judgment of it, but John’s understanding is something that I am not in complete disagreement with either. Please enjoy, and as always, I covet your input!

The Temple and Jesus