OFF THE WALL

SQUARE PEGS

2011-07-14T07:26:00.000-04:00

Repeatedly, the New Testament calls us to repent. This theme is first communicated by John the Baptist, followed by Christ in the gospels. Later, Peter in Acts and Paul in the Epistles tackle the subject. Finally, Apostle John caps off the teaching on repentance in Revelations. What I find odd is that Revelations is the only New Testament book that refers to repentance as a cleanup act from bad behavior. Dig into it on your own with a concordance and you’ll find that that every other New Testament reference just tells us to repent – just do it – assuming we know what “it” is. Check out the Revelation passages:

Rev 2:21 And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent.

Rev 2:22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.

Rev 9:20 But the rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands,

Rev 9:21 And they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts.

Rev 16:11 They blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and did not repent of their deeds.

I bring this up because the original Greek usage of repentance is tied to the Greek word “metanoeo”. This word is a compound word of “meta” (which literally means ‘after thought’ or ‘re-thinking’) and “noeo” (which means to exercise the mind, to comprehend, to understand). Put together, metanoeo means a complete change of mind from one thing to another in which two positions are mutually exclusive. It is a total reversal from one’s previous beliefs.

QUESTIONS SCRIBBLED ON MY HEART’S WALL

1. Traditionally we think of repentance as getting our act cleaned up – a behavioral turning from bad disgusting behavior. But the original sense of repentance had little to do with behavior and had everything to do with the inner cognitive dimension of humanity. What might this suggest about the relevance of current mainstream preaching when it comes to repentance?

2. Let’s say that repentance has to do with the cognitive (thinking) dimension of our lives. If true, this helps me to understand Paul’s teaching in Romans 12:1-2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Paul said to be “transformed” where? How? Answer: “by the renewing of your mind”. This is a cognitive, thinking, gray-matter thing. It’s all about my attitudes, my beliefs, my thinking, and my emotions – all powerful elements that impact and influence my behavior. In fact, Paul discourages us from being “conformed” to the world. Of course this means to not play follow the leader in a world of corruption, but I think it also means to not simply play follow the leader in the world of religion and piety. Conforming is when a square peg decides to reshape itself on the outside to become a round peg so that it will fit through a round hole, but inside it is still a square peg – and eventually it will evolve back into the shape of a square peg. If repentance is merely conforming, the repenter and everyone around him will forever be frustrated. But if repentance is a transformation that begins deep inside the mind, heart and soul, then Paul says that this sort of repentance will prove out that which is good and acceptable and perfect when it comes to the will of God. Jesus put it this way "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.” (Matt 23:25-26)

3. All this considered, then why did the Apostle John in Revelations link repentance so strongly to behavior? He uses the same Greek word as Jesus, Peter and Paul use in the New Testament, but the sense is different in that he is the only one who forecasted destruction to those who did not “repent of their deeds”. So what gives? Is John in contradiction with others in the Bible? Let’s not rush judgment here. Consider that Revelations is the last book of the Bible. It talks about last things. Genuine repentance, albeit it starts inside the cup must eventually in the end progressively play itself out toward the outside of the cup. John’s focus is on last things and the end game. Even Christ repeatedly spoke about the end game when he taught about the fruit of repentance and forecasted trouble when such fruit did not, in the end, bear out (Luke 13:9).

4. This brings us to the hard questions of self-reflection. Answer them for yourself. If I have resorted to repentance being a “clean-up” act, to what degree am I allowing that change to really take root in my mind, so that the new “round peg” stays a “round peg”? What areas has my spiritual journey merely been an act of outward conforming, an act that is still resisted inwardly and in conflict with mind? What areas have I found real liberty in as change was initiated deep within and eventually worked its way outward in how I have related to the world around me? Finally, what areas have I copped out spiritually by convincing myself that a change has happened inwardly but by compromising outwardly with the suggestion that outward change really isn’t necessary. What areas does the outward need to be reconciled with the inward, and the inward reconciled with the outward –as the whole of being human, inward and outwardly, is being reconciled daily with the Savior.

CLUELESS

2011-06-01T07:42:00.000-04:00

Some knots are difficult to untangle. From Mark 13:32, Jesus commented on the last days, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

I can accept that of that day and hour no one knows. The landscape of Christian history is littered with failed end-time predictions. Jesus even remarked that the angels in heaven were out of the loop. But here’s the kicker – the Son was also clueless? Jesus said, “. . . nor the Son, but only the Father.”

QUESTIONS SCRIBBLED ON MY HEART’S WALL

1. Jesus is the Son of God – fully part of the Trinity – God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. He was present at the Creation of the world when God remarked, “Let us make man in our image.” John described Christ as the “Word made flesh and dwelt among us.” Through the incarnation, He was 100% man (Son of man); He was also 100% God (Son of God). So when Jesus says, “. . . nor the son” that seems to be a real knot in a rope. If Jesus is God, He should know everything – omniscient – all-knowing – right?

2. Someone remarked that the mystery of the God-head is sort of like the multidimentionalness levels of man – Id, Ego, and Superego. Each part of our humanness is connected, but sometimes disconnect can arise. Maybe that helps. I don’t know. It’s hard for me to imagine how there can be a disconnect within the God-head.

3. Someone else remarked that God didn’t share it with the Son because if He did, the Son might blab it to his followers – spoiling the surprise. Well, let’s face it, the Bible says that Jesus was tempted in all things, but did not sin.

4. Another suggested that just as God enacted self-limitations through not having full control over man (allowing free-will), He further limited Himself internally within the God-head by not allowing God the Son to have knowledge of just this one thing. If this is true, it probably shouldn’t be viewed as an outright disconnect; rather, it would be more of an internal measure of self-restraint which is not inconsistent with His omnipotence or omniscience. Maybe this moves us closer to understanding the Mark 13 statement. Maybe.

5. One commentator suggested that the translation “But of that day and hour no one knows . . .” might be better rendered from the original language as “But of that day and hour no one makes known . . . “. In this case, the exclusive, singular, legal prerogative to make known that day and hour belongs to God the Father alone. Even if a man had a clue (which he wouldn’t) it would not be his right to blab it. Even if the angels had some insider knowledge, it would not be their privilege to spill the beans. Even if the Son knew (which my gut tells me that He did), it would still not be His place to upstage the Father. This isn’t a bad theory, but perhaps there’s even a better explanation of why Jesus said what He did.

6. Could it be that when Jesus remarked, “ . . . nor the Son . . .” it was not a commentary about his ignorance, but rather a statement about his submission? The gospels offer plenty of documentation that Jesus only spoke what the Father told him to speak. God the Son was not autonomous to God the Father; however, He did exercise the divine attributes at the Father’s bidding. Consider John 4:34 “Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.’” Next, check out John 8:26-29 “’I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him.’ They did not understand that He spoke to them of the Father. Then Jesus said to them, ‘When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.’” Finally, notice what Jesus said in John 12:49-50 “For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak." Even a Messianic prophecy from Isaiah 50:4 adds to this aspect of the Messiah’s submission: "The Lord God has given Me The tongue of the learned, That I should know how to speak a word in season to him who is weary. He awakens Me morning by morning, He awakens My ear to hear as the learned.

7. As the Word made flesh, Jesus is the mouth-piece of the God-head. He represents Himself as daily receiving His instructions about what to communicate for that day. When Jesus says in Mark 13, “. . . nor the Son . . .” it may just be that the precise time of His own return was not part of His instructions. Admittedly, this theory doesn’t entirely untangle the knot, but it sure loosens it for me.

8. There is one important take-away from this whole discussion. Moving from theorizing to personalizing, I marvel at the model of submission Jesus demonstrated for each of us. Each morning, He spent time with God the Father. And to be Christ-like, so must I. Here’s a prayer, “Father God, I begin this day asking You to lead, guide, and nudge me in the things that I can say and the ways that I can respond that would bring You the most glory. I recognize that I may not be able to fully wrap my brain around the mysteries of the Bible, the end-times or the trinity, but for that which You have granted understanding, lead me in a life of daily submission.”

LAST WORDS

2011-05-04T07:56:00.000-04:00

We all know some of Jesus’ last words on the cross: Father forgive them, for they know not what they do; Today you will be with me in paradise; Behold your son: behold your mother; I thirst; etc. But what were the absolute very last words of Jesus on the cross?

Interestingly, the four gospels are not in full agreement: Matthew 27 and Mark 15 say, My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me? Luke 23 says, Father, into your hands I commit My spirit. Lastly, John 19 records Jesus saying, It is finished. If you were a gospel writer, what would you have recorded as Jesus’ absolute very last words on the cross?

QUESTIONS SCRIBBLED ON MY HEART’S WALL:

1. Since Matthew & Mark both agree that Jesus said My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me? then they must have got it right – right? But hold on. A few verses later, Matthew adds, And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit (vs. 50) and a few verses later Mark adds something similar, And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed His last. (vs. 37). My question is: What was this “cried out”? Was it the same sound I make when I hit my thumb with a hammer – an audible out-lash of pain? Was his outcry a distinguishable or indistinguishable utterance? While the answer is uncertain, it does allow for the possibility that what Matthew & Mark recorded were not necessarily the absolute last words of Jesus on the cross.

2. What about Luke and John’s account? We know that John was the only disciple of Jesus at the cross. Luke wasn’t even around – he later emerges in the New Testament narrative in Acts under the ministry of Paul. Luke was a physician and was more of a compiler or historian putting together an orderly account in Luke and Acts. Since John was the only Calvary eye-witness among the four gospel writers, I’m inclined to trust his narrative the most . . . until I make a closer comparison of his account and Luke’s. Compare them with me:

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.'“Having said this, He breathed His last.

John 19:39 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

3. Did you catch the clue? Look carefully at John’s comments after Jesus said, It is finished. John adds, And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit – which fits perfectly with what Luke records Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit” – after which Jesus breathed His last. So . . . I guess my vote now goes to Luke’s account for recording the absolute words of Jesus. It’s just a vote, I may still be wrong.

4. Now let’s dig deeper. Does the lack of agreement among the gospels suggest disagreement, disharmony and even contradiction among the gospel accounts? I don’t think so. I think that the variances among the accounts are normal and to be expected. If you and I both witnessed a traffic accident and the police separate us to get written statements, I can guarantee you that our accounts would have points of similarity and points of variance. We all see and hear things differently. In a court of law, the fact that two witnesses have points of variance in their testimony only adds to the validity of the witnesses.

5. Digging further, I am convinced that in grief situations, human nature tends to lock onto words or images that are most striking, that most trigger an emotional response. Such words or images get more “cemented” in our memory.

Consider Matthew – his aim was to show that Jesus was the fulfiller of Old Testament prophecy – to show that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God. For Matthew to hear Jesus say, My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me must have sent shockwaves throughout his soul. In the midst of horrific grief, Jesus’ statement might suggest both differentiation and abandonment from Father God – both notions quite contrary to what Matthew believed and hoped for in Christ Jesus. As a result, this statement of Jesus above all other last statements would be cemented in Matthew’s mind.

Consider Mark – a young non-disciple at the time of Christ – likely the curious onlooker who almost got caught at Gethsemane (Mark 14:51). Perhaps as the son of a wealthy widow who generously supported the Christ followers, Mark may have felt resentment about all the money that could have otherwise been his, flowing out to the disciples. To this end, Mark may not originally have been a “friendly”. He may have secretly wished for the failure of the disciples. To hear of Christ saying, My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me may have elicited a trigger quite different from Matthew’s. The emotional trigger may have been one of glee – that Jesus had failed and that this whole business of supporting the disciples would terminate. As a result, this statement of Jesus above all other last statements would be cemented in Mark’s mind. Again, the same statement cemented in the memory of Matthew and Mark – but for opposite reasons.

Consider Luke – a dispassionate physician, inclined toward detail, taking in all the eyewitness accounts and attempting to compile an orderly account. In terms of the notion of human emotional triggers and cementing of memories, Luke was not at the cross. Again, Luke had no emotional investment in the Calvary events. Luke, unlike any of the others, could gather up the facts of the events after the fact and put them together in a detached manner. Luke already knew of the resurrection. All of the others were living in the moment of the horrific events of the cross.

Finally, consider John – the beloved disciple – perhaps the one closest to Jesus. At the cross, Jesus being brutally executed was not just John’s Savior and Lord, it was his best friend. And when Jesus said, It is finished, I’m inclined to believe that those words triggered the worst of anguish in John’s seat of emotions and that anything else that was said didn’t matter. It was over. All was lost. As a result, this statement of Jesus above all other last statements would be eternally cemented in John’s mind.

6. Now pretend you are embedded among the disciples – either in hiding or actually at the cross. You are there with all your hopes, dreams, and emotions. Jesus made lots of “last statements” in a period of a few hours. Of all the statements of Christ, which would most trigger your emotions and be cemented in your memory to the exclusion of any other statement? If you were a gospel writer, how would your account read to later generations. Don’t cheat yourself on this exercise. Sort through all the layers that make up who you are. Your answer may surprise you.

CAJUN COFFEE

2011-04-04T09:02:00.001-04:00

Romans 12:3 is one of those “no-excuse” scriptures. The Apostle Paul teaches that “God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.” My take is that Jesus is an equal-opportunity savior. Whether it’s an unrelenting atheist or an undiscovered aborigine, each is granted an internal nibblet that prods them toward their Creator. But is each one’s nibblet the same size?

QUESTIONS SCRIBBLED ON MY HEART’S WALL:

1. Has each one been given the same measure of faith? If so, then why does it seem that some people have more faith than others? Of course, some brag about all the faith they have; yet it seems that these folks are sometimes the most spiritually insecure. Then there are others who live on an unassuming level but who excel in faith – on a level I wish I had.

2. Perhaps God has not granted equal measures of faith. The term “measure” brings to mind measuring spoons and cups in the kitchen drawer. In Romans 12 Paul also says, “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith . . .” (verse 6). Does this suggest that people have differing “proportions” or “portions” of faith? If so, then why was I granted a measly Tablespoon of faith? Why didn’t I get the quarter cup, half cup, or even a heaping whole cup of faith? Okay, I’ll lower the lighting rod of my complaint and confess that I am grateful that at least I got a Tablespoon. It could be a teaspoon.

3. My questions swell when I the 1 Corinthians 12:9 reference to the “gift of faith” - a gift among many gifts of which the “Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills” (verse 11) and verse 29-30 where Paul asks, “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?”

4. Puzzling everything from Romans and Corinthians, I get the impression that while each has been given an original “measure of faith” some lucky few get an additional “gift of faith”. Perhaps it’s like an octane booster additive for the tank of gas. Whatever it is, I wish I had it. My faith is like my singing. I sound glorious when my voice is engulfed by all the other choir voices – but when I miss my cue, I really sound awful. Similarly, my faith stands tall when surrounded by the faith of others, but as a standalone entity it’s often falters. In Louisiana, an elderly shut-in remarked that her headache went away after I prayed for her. Going through my mind as I prayed was, “Lady, after I’m done praying, take some Tylenol and go to bed.” Don’t misunderstand me - yes I believe God heals – but it is fully God who heals, not me!

5. Digging deeper, perhaps the “kitchen measuring utensils” model of faith is flawed. Paul talks in Romans 14:1 about “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye . . .”. Is it possible that the measure of faith is less of a quantitative measure and more of a qualitative measure? I’m blogging at Star Bucks and I’m often challenged by the coffee choices. From a quantitative standpoint, it would be easier if they just offered “small”, “medium”, and “large”. Nope, my “small” is their “Short” and my “medium” is their “Tall”, and my large is their “Grande” and then there’s the extra large cup – the “Venti”. What’s a “Venti”? And then there’s the choice of brew strength – there’s a light roast, a medium roast, and then a bold espresso flavor. Whatever happened to just ordering a normal cup of coffee? Amber says I’m terribly menu-challenged. Back to faith – perhaps this “measure of faith” is less about the size of the cup, but more about brew strength. Some prefer the morning blend. Others like it robust. When I pastored in Louisiana, there was only one brew strength. It wasn’t Cajun coffee if it wasn’t strong enough to dissolve the spoon!

6. A few months ago, Amber got a package of coffee that wasn’t ground up well. As a result, the coffee brewed weak. It looked like tea. Staying with the “brew-strength” model of faith, could it be that the strongest faith is that which has been ground up the most? Coffee beans that are not pulverized thoroughly don’t make good coffee. They need to be crushed and mutilated for the flavor to come out and mix with the hot water to make the perfect cup of coffee. Could it be that those who’ve been most crushed and broken by life’s circumstances are perhaps the candidates for the strongest brew-strength of faith? Could it be that those who feel weakest in faith (beat-up, challenged, and even exasperated in their faith) are perhaps those who, in God’s eyes, may actually be the strongest in faith? Is the measure of faith really the mountains vanquished from one’s path, or is it the steadfastness of one whose mountains never seem to vanish?

My Prayer: God, I’m not asking for the largest cup. But at least make mine Cajun.

THE STING

2011-03-02T13:26:00.000-05:00

As I write this, its been exactly one week since I held my father-in-law’s hand for the last time in that quiet Hospice room. All alone, I had the freedom to weep without scrutiny, to cry out to God honestly.

As a Christ-follower, I frequently seek comfort from Scripture. I like First Corinthians 15 –“Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed — in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be change . . .” But verse 55 has me perplexed. It reads, "O Death, where is your sting?”

My first reaction to Paul’s question is, “I know right were Death’s sting is. It’s lodged in my chest!”

QUESTIONS SCRIBBLED ON MY HEART’S WALL:

1. Is Paul suggesting that death’s sting is forever gone by virtue of the “victory”? If that’s true, then why does grief hurt so badly? Should I be concerned that I’m not a “victorious” Christian?

2. In Acts 9:5 and 26:14, the same word is used and alludes to an unruly oxen or beast of burden which puts up resistance against a superior power (the farmer). It is applied to those, who by their resistance to that superior power, hurt themselves. Making sense of the “sting”, is death is a “superior” power – something that, if resisted, only opens the door to further pain and grief. While I believe that death is a powerful thing, I prefer to believe that there is a power more superior to death and that the grave was conquered long ago by the cross. I have always affirmed that by virtue of Christ’s victory the sting of death has been annulled. Even so, the sting is still there. I can’t deny it. It hurts!

3. Revelation 9:10 uses the same word referring to the poisonous stinging tail of a scorpion. This brings to mind a bad Florida beach moment with our son Cody long ago. Wading in the shallow surf, he accidently stepped on a small stingray that reflexively whipped its barb and lacerated the side of his foot, releasing its painful venom. Unsuccessful in calming Cody we headed off to the nearest Urgent Care Center. Eventually Cody began feeling better. However, before leaving Urgent Care, the doctor gave a helpful, but unorthodox suggestion for “next time” this happens. He recommended urinating on the wound – that it would neutralize the stingray venom. I guess that remedy is best done behind a palm tree.

4. In reference to the awful sting of death, I’m tempted to do just what the doctor suggested. Sometimes I feel so angry at the pain of the sting that I’d like to do my thing all over it. The problem with urinating on “the sting” is public indecency. We have standards in society of decency and behavior that is proper and not repulsive to others. That’s where one must find a palm tree to hide behind. Apart from literally saturating the sting with human urine, I have found that the only thing that seems to calm the pain of the grave’s sting is to saturate it with something else - my tears. Even then, I feel that I must still find a palm tree to hide behind. Do people really want to see that? Of course there’s a time for public grief, but even then it seems that some folks have a low tolerance for seeing others grieve. Because of that many of my tears are released only after I find a palm tree to hide behind. Other times, I seek out palm trees because I don’t want to be a bother or burden to others who are also hovering near their own palm trees.

5. Palm tree or open beach, I still believe that for me, if I resist grief and fail to saturate the sting with my tears that the sting festers all the more. Falling asleep is most difficult when I resist grief and try to push it out of my mind. But when I give myself permission to think about it, to re-live memories and cry, then sleep comes better and the sting begins losing its power.

6. Could it be that the only power grave’s sting has is that which we give it? Common Christian clichés do nothing to diminish the pain and power of the sting – in fact resisting the sting by denial and platitudes only seems to make it worse. Could it be that living in the reality of the moment and allowing oneself to feel the fullness of the sting, is part of authentic faith? And could it be that as we saturate that sting with our humanity and tears, that the healing power of the resurrection has the best potential of doing its work?

7. Before resurrection comes death. Could it be that to deny, ignore, resist death and its sting is to set oneself up for a frustrating path of recovery? Palm tree or open beach, to the extent that the sting of death is fully acknowledged, embraced and saturated with the fullness of human emotion – to that extent the hope of the resurrection and can be fully acknowledged, embraced and experienced. To this end, I can agree with Paul, “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

WICKEDLEAKS

2011-02-02T13:48:00.000-05:00

There He goes again - God, asleep at the switch!

Ever messed up big time? Sodom and Gomorrah sure did. However they weren’t sweating it because God wasn’t paying any attention – or so it might seem. Had no one leaked the bad news, Mrs. Lot may never have gotten that salty complexion and the twin cities may never have had to apply for federal disaster aid.

Look what God says to Abraham:

"Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know." (Genesis 18:17-21)

Okay, maybe it’s nitpicky. But I’m dumfounded that God has to “go down” and “see” whether what was leaked to Him was true or not.

QUESTIONS SCRIBBLED ON MY HEART’S WALL:

1. Why does God have to “go down” and check it out in the first place? Isn’t God Omniscient (all-knowing)? Doesn’t God, from His perch in heaven, already know whether their corruption is true or not? Even from my own living room I can see the mayhem in Egypt today. Is God paying any attention there either?

2. The context for this is that God has appeared physically to Abraham. With God are two other angelic-like beings. Could it be that when God makes these pre-incarnate (pre-Christ) type physical appearances that He, by virtue of the finite, is self-limited? In other words, although He is boundless God, is it possible that in the confines of the human moment that omniscience is blurred – thus evoking enough uncertainty that troubling circumstances are best confirmed first-hand?

3. The Genesis 18 instance of God “coming down to see” is not the first time God checked up on mischief first-hand. Genesis 11 documents the Tower scandal. Remember that? Verse 5 records: “But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.” Could it be that when our mischief becomes so outrageous, God finds himself, not so much in a position of general doubt, but rather in a position of grievous disbelief? Is His personal notice of some things really for the purpose of confirmation (to decry) or is it for lamentation (to cry)? This consideration brings me to a personal heart-search: “What is the purpose of my interest in a ghastly rumor about someone’s fall? Why do I have to check it out? Is my personal interest just an act of spiritual voyeurism? Am I seeking to embolden my own righteousness by confirming someone else’s unrighteousness? When a dirty rumor is confirmed, am I apt to join in the voices that decry . . . or am I more apt to breakdown and cry?

4. Regardless of why God had to “come down and see”, I find it comforting that it takes more than mere rumor to upset the Almighty. Before God goes nuclear, He at least takes an 8-count and checks things out personally. All this brings me to a line-up of self-search questions: How many times do I make rash and quick judgment of others based solely on rumor? I want to trust what others tell me – surely, they have no reason to lie, exaggerate, or embellish. Sometimes there’s even a bit of religious peer pressure to jump on the bandwagon with them; and if you hesitate, you’re sometimes misjudged as wishy-washy and sin-tolerant. I’m sorry but I just don’t immediately buy-in to negative rumors . . . even from the best of my friends. When they hit my inbox, I feel spammed. Winter weather warnings begin going off in my conscience – danger . . . slick ice here . . . watch your step! Far too often, the rumors only contain part of the story. So why jump to conclusions? Hitching a ride on the old bandwagon seems to serve only empower those who have already drawn their conclusions? Even Jesus warns, Murmur not among yourselves. (John 6:43). And if The Almighty can exercise restraint, why shouldn’t I?

5. Let’s dig even deeper here – buckle that seatbelt and keep your arms in on this ride: Could it be that God’s restraint was actually a “strategic delay” to facilitate grace? Read Genesis 18 carefully and notice that the two other angelic beings were dispatched on toward Sodom and Gomorrah. The third “angel” – the Lord – lingered behind with Abraham. It was here that Abraham interceded to spare the innocent. In His omniscience, I’ve gotta believe that God already knew what He knew. Perhaps He didn’t need to see the cities first-hand after all. Perhaps all that God really wanted to see first-hand was the heart of Abraham – and whether Abraham was a rash, rushed, judgmental Band-Waggoner or whether he was truly a man of faith who could exercise wisdom and restraint. Perhaps God needed to see first-hand whether Abraham was truly deserving of being the father of a line of people through whom the Promised Deliverer would come.

My Prayer: Lord, when rumors hit my inbox, will I pass the test? May I never throw someone under the bus through my own rash and impulsive itch to believe the worst. Slap me hard if I ever succumb to the pressure of others “just believe them”. Help me to know what my business is and isn’t and give me the wisdom to know the difference. Thank you Lord that you see all things. Nothing is hidden from you. Help me to be a reflection of your justice that’s impartial and your love that’s abundant.

THE BOOT

2011-01-20T08:44:00.002-05:00

Recently I preached from Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened . . .

I focused on two points: (1) the new awareness Adam and Eve had to their own nakedness and (2) the new awareness they had to the pain of child-birth. Just before that sermon was preached I deleted (being sensitive to time) a third point – a third new awareness that Adam and Eve had as a result of partaking of the forbidden Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That new awareness was of the Tree of Eternal Life.

Check it out - Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" — therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22-24)

Before chowing down on the forbidden, there is no indication that they had any awareness of the Tree of Life – just an awareness of the Tree of Knowledge. With their eyes freshly opened, scripture indicates that they now potentially had awareness of something that was present all along but previously hidden from their eyes. As a result, God gave them the boot. The tribe has spoken!

Questions scribbled on my heart’s wall:

1. What was God really so hot and bothered about anyway? What was the real threat? Was God jealous? Was He afraid that Adam and Eve would become “gods” – too many cooks now in the same kitchen sort of thing?

2. Could the eviction actually been an act of divine love? The progression through Genesis 3 shows Adam and Eve worsening a bad situation by their own denial and blame-shifting. Before the eviction they get the surprise news of their futures filled with pain, toil and frustration. With their new awareness of the Tree of Life, was God now worried that they might turn to that Tree as "quick fix" for their nakedness, pain, and toil – hoping for relief but instead potentially locking themselves into a permanent and forever fallen situation? How disastrous would that have been?

3. How often, when I’m in a mess, do my home-made remedies only make things worse?

4. The Tree of Life would seem to be a good religious thing – a quick fix for a bad situation. One quickie bite - right? Yeah - we know what happened after the last on-the-go snack. What seemingly good religious things am I apt to turn to for a quick fix rather than walking the difficult paths of discipline and redemption that God might have for my life instead?

5. In what ways may God be trying to protect me from myself today?

6. When I feel “evicted” from what could have been (when I feel the dreams of yesterday have eluded my grasp because of my failures and sins), can I wrap my brain around this idea . . . that somewhere in the midst of this path of discipline may just be the loving hand of the Father rather than the angry boot of fate? How can I let go of what could have been and move forward in what "is"? Can I find purpose and hope in this purplexing path?