Fantastical and Debilitating Electricity

          In the media I have been seeing conflicting messages about electricity.  On the one hand, there appears to be ‘fantastical’ electricity out there that is going to solve our climate problems.  This fantastical electricity is what is going to power all the electric cars which are replacing cars running on fossil fuels so that there will no longer be emissions from our beloved automobiles destroying the atmosphere. 

          On the other hand, just read an article on ‘bigthink.com’ about debilitating electrical use.  In our air conditioners.  It is a vicious cycle.  The world gets hotter, so we run our air conditioners to stay cool.  That does three bad things.  First, it cycles the hot air out into the atmosphere, adding more heat to the total equation.  Second, it has the potential to vent atmospheric-damaging chemicals that are used in the cooling cycle.  Third, they use debilitating electricity that is generated at power plants that use fossil fuels, just think of car exhausts but magnified exponentially.

 

          A picture is worth a thousand words, so I will just use those words some place else.

          So here’s the thing.  The whole truth is not out there.  What are the real costs in fossil fuel burning to power our electric cars?  How do power plant emissions stack up against automobile emissions-fossil fuel for fossil fuel?  How much better can we make the system if we prioritize cars over air conditioners?  Or the other way around?

          Why do we care?  Unless we are Christians who have dismissed this world to go on the days of destruction as we await the return of Jesus, the Bible tells us its our job.

          In Genesis, the Creation, humanity was made the steward of God’s creation.  We were tossed out of the garden, but that mandate was never revoked.  However, in some translations, the mandate is very much in line with our exploitation of creation.  We are told ‘to subdue’ the earth.  Which we have, very effectively.

          But here’s the thing.  If the mandate to be God’s stewards on the earth has not been revoked.  And if the language of ‘subduing it’ was issued before we sinned and fell from grace so it has been corrupted by sin, just like everything else…that means our stewardship is one more piece of our humanity that comes under the redemption of Jesus’ death and resurrection on the cross.  That means 'subjugation' comes under the mandate of God's perfection and not human sin.  It is a very different picture.

          So we need to care about what happens to the earth.  We need to be able to evaluate the media when the development of electrical cars is spoken of almost joyfully.  We need to educate ourselves on what we are doing to the world.  Because that is our job. 

So here’s a bit of speculation.  When the end does come and the promise of a renewed heaven and a renewed earth are fulfilled, and we are called home to the promise of eternal life in the love and nurture of our God, what if stewardship continues to be our job?  Sure, God can maintain the creation, whether it is the Garden before the Fall, or nature that groans under the weight of sin in this present age, or the renewed nature in the life to come.  What if the joy of Heaven is tending to what God has created that is now redeemed, uncorrupted by sin?

So, God made us to tend to God’s creation.  I like what the Westminster Catechism teaches us about the purpose of humanity.  We are created to glorify God forever.  Makes me think that glorifying God is going to include something about tending to the creation.  Makes me believe that the expression of our glory to God in this life includes the care of this creation.  Makes me hope that heaven is more than the cartoons that portray people in togas and angel wings flying about playing harps.  But back to the present.

There is no fantastical electricity in competition or distinction to debilitating electricity.  It comes from the same source.  It is our responsibility as Christians to work toward making the production of electricity ‘planet friendly’ or, if we prefer, ‘creation friendly’.  It is our mandate as stewards of God’s world.  I believe that the work we do for the creation now is but a reflection of the work we will have the joy to perform in eternity.

Rev. Peter Hofstra

The Squid Game: Implications to Faith

           “The Squid Game” begins with a recollection from childhood, friends playing the Squid Game.  It’s a running around game, something integrating elements of ‘Tag’, of ‘British Bulldog’, something to be remembered fondly.  That opening sequence is probably the only part that I would suggest that kids watch.  Because this show is brutal.

          It is also compelling, original in its brutality, and very well done.  From one article I read, it is apparently even better in the Korean in which it was written and produced.

          Okay, SPOILERS AHEAD.  Four hundred and fifty six people, all in desperate need of money, are selected, screened for their acceptance of physical assault in pursuit of money, and then thrust into an arena to compete for a fortune.  It’s a variation on the gladiatorial games.  It hearkens back, for me, to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome-the final movie in the franchise BEFORE the reboot.  There was the arena-Thunderdome-and the chant.  “Two men enter, one man leave.”

          In this case, four hundred and fifty six enter, one leaves.  And it is not a combat arena.  Rather, the contestants are subjected to kid’s games, like “Red Light Green Light” (and a very disturbing doll) or playing with marbles and so on.  But to lose is to die.  If the game is not rigged to kill you, the anonymous guards will do it, shot and executed.

          It’s a tale of what money will drive people to.  One of the more horrifying moments comes when, after the first game, after the deaths of half their number, they have an option, by majority rule, to end the game.  Which they do-the contestants do, without retribution.  But after some time in the ‘real’ world of their former desperation, the vast majority, when given the opportunity, return.

          It is not just a tale of what money will drive people to do when they do not have it.  We meet the VIP’s, the rich and bored of the 1% who gather to bet on these games.  They have money to do anything they want and they derive pleasure from watching the poor fight one another.  It is the boredom of the rich that pays for this entire enterprise-but that is one twist I will not spoil here.  It got me.

          Okay Pastor, why do you watch stuff like this, Pastor?  Is it to see how the faith is portrayed?  Well, there are a few moments where Christianity (which is the dominant faith in South Korea) is focused upon, and it does not come off well. 

          The more I watched this, the more the beginning of Ecclesiastes echoed in my mind.  “Meaningless!  Meaningless!  Utterly meaningless!  Everything is meaningless.  What do people gain from all their labors at which they toil under the sun?” (New International Version)

          This book of ‘wisdom’ carries a theme that the pursuit of the pleasures of life are ultimately useless in and of itself.  And the author, according to the introduction to the book, is King Solomon, the richest and the ‘wisest’ king of Israel’s history.  (Yes, the book does not mention him by name but verse 1 beings “The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem…”

          Why is “The Squid Game” so popular?  It is the latest manifestation of that ultimate burden of life and wealth.  It is meaningless.  People will die to get it.  People who got it will watch them dying to gain distraction.  Audiences will watch ever more brutal and violent portrayals of what ‘could happen’, like a world in which “The Squid Game” occurs, for the same reason.

          As I said, while Christianity takes its lumps in this vision of who we might be, that was not the emotional gut punch for me.  No, that came with the married couple among the contestants.  And the game with marbles.  I will not spoil what happens, except to say that that this was the moment when the pursuit of money swept over even love and affection. 

          In a world of boredom and desperation…I can hear the narrator speaking those words in a deep bass tone.  This is where real faith is so necessary.  “The Squid Game” is well done, very well done.  It touches something deep in the culture of the world.  I have to admit that the only thing that truly let me down was their attempt at a hopeful conclusion.  It struck me as a rather forced hook for Season Two.

          So what do we do about this?  Wake up.  Realize how the ‘important’ things in life have been defined for us by the culture around us-the sinful culture around us.  There is an “AHA” moment in this for me.  Sunday’s service is based in the second half of John 14 as our Scripture lesson.  While not the focus of the sermon, there is one line in there, spoken by Jesus, “I cannot talk to you much more, because the ruler of this world is coming.  But he has no power over me.”  Obvious reference to the devil, I would think.

          Consider this.  “The Squid Game” portrays the world as it becomes under the present ruler of the world.  Consider the twisted, malevolent, evil guiding the culture of the world that gets audiences to be transfixed by this ‘what if’ possibility.  Consider how much we need to plumb the depths of our Christian faith, of the love and peace and forgiveness we are taught by Jesus to stand up to that ‘reality’.

The “Old Rich White Guy”: Considering a Four-Fold Path of Privilege.

          Have you heard of the pancake/waffle conundrum on social media?  I get on a social media platform and speak of how I like pancakes.  The first comment comes from someone asking why it is that I hate waffles.  The presumption of exclusion, one of the things that makes social media such an unstable platform for the exchange of meaningful information.

          I start there because I fear I am going to get a lot of the pancake/waffle conundrum going with this blog post.  In our nation right now, there is a powerful movement about deconstructing ‘white privilege’ in order to create a better tomorrow.  This is an incredibly important discussion to be having.  There is a huge corrective in the way things are in America that will come from its deconstruction.  But its only one piece of the puzzle.

          I was watching some Hollywood “high-lister” (I do not know who rates what in the alphabet of Hollywood lists), self-identifying with white privilege, a brave and personal decision to come out with, speaking with the conviction of solidarity with all who are white, that all have this privilege, that all must come to terms with it.  That kind of blanket conclusion, that all who are white must now surrender their privilege, it only works in some kind of social experiment where one of the presuppositions goes something like “all other things being equal.”

          If we can control for age and economic status and gender and what other factors that I am not cognizant of, then we can justify someone making this kind of blanket pronouncement, under ‘laboratory conditions’.  This is commentary on the old rich WHITE guy.  But this isn’t the lab.  Privilege is not one dimensional.  And a rich person telling people who are poor that they have to give up their privilege-no matter how they couch that word-smacks of hypocrisy to me.

          There is a privilege to being rich that we rarely talk about in this country.  Because that’s the American dream, isn’t it?  Build enough wealth and we are free to do ‘whatever we want’.  But how small a minority of the people hold how much a majority of the wealth?  And isn’t there an inherent conflict within communities, however they self-identify, between the ‘have’s’ and the ‘have-not’s’? 

          With the Old Rich White Guy, that is two of the four folds of privilege.  Now if you think I have spoken inadequately about white privilege and the evils of racism, addressing the privileges of age in a culture with an ever-heightening awareness of age discrimination is really going to start some fires.  Being old certainly does not mean being wealthy.  But wealth itself is often older than the current generation.  What was the line, “I made my money the old-fashioned way, I inherited it?”  Being old is a double-edged sword in this country.  On the one edge, you may be part of that group of wealth holders.  On the other edge, you may be forgotten and warehoused in a care facility.

          We also live in the age of the Internet zillionaires, ‘young ones’ with buckets full of money, money not made over generations.  But for every ‘young’ zillionaire who makes the news, how many…chronologically advanced individuals are there who hold disproportionate amounts of power and influence?

          And let us not forget the privilege of gender.  Being male has all kinds of privilege wrapped up in it.  But this privilege is also influenced by skin color.  I have read feminist essays speaking of white male privilege and womanist essays speaking of black male privilege.  And I am wholly unqualified to speak out on such a topic, except in the broadest summary.

          Privilege of life experience, privilege of economic status, privilege of race, and privilege of gender, that is simply my ‘four-fold’ path of privilege.  I have privilege in all four categories.  What I am saying is that privilege is more than a two-sided argument, that we need more clarity of the nuances of privilege and inequality if we are going to meaningfully implement change.

 

“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”

                 The meme said that this is a quote from Thomas Paine.  It calls him an “English-American political activist, writer, and revolutionary.”  But did he really say this?  Some memes put some great quotes out there.  Some of them are actually accurate.  According to Google, this one is rightly attributed to Mr. Paine.

                So I had this whole, long, rather clever blog post playing with this quote, considering how it goes back to the founding of the nation, but how true it is today.  It was a rather oversized political consideration of the nation and we who live in her.

                But there were two problems.  I knew it needed to end with a consideration of the faith, but how to make that jump while maintaining the integrity of the blog post to that moment?  The other problem was one that guides me when sermons go wandering, the question of ‘staying in my lane’ as a Christian and a pastor.

                And Mr. Paine’s quote could apply as powerfully to matters of faith as it could to political matters.  That opens up a whole new can of worms on the connection between faith and reason.  But I think it is not that theological or philosophical or even presuppositional for the Christian. 

                Consider the colonial foundations of this nation.  Religious groups who found themselves persecuted, imprisoned, even killed by trial or in open warfare, many found a new start over here.  It was a good use of reason to get out of the ‘firing line’ of the ‘old world’.  On the other hand, for me, a sure sign that the use of reason has been renounced in the Christian faith is when a person or persons of faith slip away from the plain meaning of the text where Jesus says the law is to love God and love neighbor.

                Consider the Puritans in colonial Massachusetts.  They reasoned that a new world meant new freedom for their interpretive structure of the Christian faith.  And it worked.  But how far was the use of reason renounced when it came to the cruel and vicious ways in which they killed their own during the witch trials?  Paine’s expression, renouncing reason being like giving medicine to the dead, it resonates.  Where was the love of God and the love of neighbor there?

                Consider the modern era.  The KKK was a declared ‘Christian’ institution.  The Christian love of God and neighbor is finding expression in branding the ‘others’ of our present day and age.  Immigrants and people outside tightly bound “biblical” definitions of gender come to mind.  OMG, does that make me a “big L” liberal?  It takes the renunciation of reason to suspend the law of love and condemn our neighbor with the arrogance of doing so ‘in Jesus’ name’.  Explain to me how the suspension of “big L” love leads to “big L” liberal and I will take on that question.

                Shall we explore the underpinnings of the “Black Lives Matter” movement?  As a privileged white male moving into the upper reaches of the mid-point region of my life, I know few people more ill-equipped to speak on behalf of someone else on this matter.  Does not mean I am not dumb enough to try, but not today.

                In my original post, I was appalled and relieved to read this quote from Thomas Paine.  That much has not changed as I have moved away from a political point of view to a Christian one.  I am relieved that the renunciation of reason is not just the product of the current age, with the Christian justifications for unloving activities woven into the polar opposites of the political spectrum.  But I am also appalled that in the centuries of Christian expression in the “New World”, we seem to have learned so little in how the Love of God and of our neighbor is the universal law of the Lord.

Peter Hofstra

"Flunking Sainthood" by Jana Riess, I found it meaningful and here, in brief, is why.

     Flunking Sainthood, or, as on the cover “fLunking sainthooed”-except the “e” in sainthood is “x’ed” out, not doubly struck through, which was the closest I could find in Word-by Jana Reiss is a memoir in the style of a couple other books I have read about doing “biblical” or “Christian” things for a fixed period, for a year. 

One of them is The Year of Living Biblically by A.J. Simpson, taking the Scriptural law and applying it to how a man should live today.   The other, which I read with the mindset of being ‘a female response’, is A Year of Biblical Womanhood by Rachel Held Evans.  The call and response between these two volumes was a delight.  The Bible is a sexist book, written in a time when there was not even the conception of something called sexism.  In each one I found new insights into studying the Bible, or “Christianity: The Sinner’s Manual”.  Jana Reiss offered something different.

According to the rear blurb, “…Jana Reiss shares a year-long quest to become more saintly by tackling twelve spiritual practices…” and then going on to list them, one per month.  The result of this year-long experiment is evident in the bio, also on the back cover.  “Jana Riess is the author or editor…so on and so forth… Although she is a spiritual failure…she has a doctorate…”  This is highly selective, but measures the success of the experiment.

Another measure of the success comes on the front cover, in considering the extended title of this volume: Flunking Sainthood: A Year of Breaking the Sabbath, Forgetting to Pray, and Still Loving My Neighbor. 

So monthly for a year, she pursued a different ‘spiritual discipline’.  Each chapter relates the events of each month.  She provides us with the resources that she curated for each discipline, describes her methodology, and her results.  As I read it, it reminded me of applying ‘the scientific method’ I learned long, long ago to each of these disciplines, essentially seeking its effectiveness in an attempt, I presume, to reproduce the effectiveness among its original adherents.  Except that it never quite worked out that way.  Which was the delight of science.  Even a failure added to the sum increase of our knowledge and wisdom.

I was frankly relieved, having tried and failed at a few of these practices myself.  If there is one thing that pastors are good at, it is not necessarily spiritual disciplines.  It is the sure and certain knowledge that we humans are highly fallible and in need of God’s grace.  This book is an honest expression of the human being, humorous and touching and redeeming in turn. 

I came away with three things.  One is an instant reference to where to start learning about any of the disciplines from her year.  She’s picked winners in these areas of life.  The second is that spiritual disciplines do not and are not meant to ‘fix us’.  This is NOT a self-help regimen, these disciplines have been developed to bring Providence more meaningfully into our existence.  And finally, while Jana Riess had her racked up a perfect record of failures in keeping the disciplines, it is evident that they did what they were supposed to, bringing one searcher a little deeper into the joy that is our relationship with God.

 

The Book: “Flunking Sainthood”, by Jana Riess.  Brewster, Massachusetts, Paraclete Press, 2011.  I finished it mid-September of 2021. 

Worship Service, July 25, 2021

Understanding Judaism as Both A National Identity as Well as A Religious Identity

June 10, 2021                        John 5: 47

  ⁴³I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. ⁴⁴How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God? ⁴⁵Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. ⁴⁶If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. ⁴⁷But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?’

6After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, also called the Sea of Tiberias.  ²A large crowd kept following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing for the sick. ³Jesus went up the mountain and sat down there with his disciples. ⁴Now the Passover, the festival of the Jews, was near.  ⁵When he looked up and saw a large crowd coming towards him, Jesus said to Philip, ‘Where are we to buy bread for these people to eat?’ ⁶He said this to test him, for he himself knew what he was going to do. ⁷Philip answered him, ‘Six months’ wages would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little.’

            He is infuriating.  That is how I perceive Jesus from the point of view of the Leadership that is in challenge with him.  The Leaders claim Moses as their foundation for their faith.  It is in distinction to all challengers, including this upstart Jesus of Nazareth who, apparently, would be welcomed as a fancy teacher, but NOT as someone claiming the authority of God.

            Fair enough, these Leaders are the ones responsible for the maintenance of the faith of the Jews through an extraordinarily difficult time.  I do not think we really understand that as Christians.  We have the context of our religion, our faith, our Christianity.  But it is not a national identity.  Despite everything we might claim about the United States being a Christian nation, Christianity is NOT a nationality.  It is a faith system.  That is where it is fundamentally different from Judaism.

            Israel is a Jewish nation.  To be Jewish is to offered citizenship.  That is not the case in the United States.  The idea of the Christian nation held sway at one time.  Before the Enlightenment, the nations of Europe were Christian nations.  For a long part of their history, they were all Roman Catholic nations in the west and Eastern Orthodox in…the East.  That broke down with the Reformation.

            Some nations remained Roman Catholic, like Spain and Portugal.  Great Britain eventually broke with the Roman Catholic Church and formed the Church of England.  Scotland went Presbyterian.  Germany, at that time a collection of smaller states, not the united nation we know today, varied between Lutheran and Catholic and a few Reformed.  France was Roman Catholic but tolerant of Protestants until a certain point where the ‘door of orthodoxy’ slammed shut.

            It is interesting how this is reflected in the American colonies.  Freedom to practice religion in their own way was one motivating factor is setting the colonies up.  The Puritans settled into Massachusetts.  Pennsylvania was predominantly Quaker in its inception.  If I understand my history, Maryland was Roman Catholic while Virginia was very much Church of England. 

            The difference in Israel is that the Jewish national identity transcends religious sectarianism.  There are secular Jews and the ultra-Orthodox, we might know them from the news by their traditional black hats and living side by side under one flag.

            With this national identity invested in the Leadership, Jesus is not simply challenging faith-based authority, but their very political authority.  And the political authority for the Jewish Leadership is very much at the whim of the Romans.  So the challenge coming from Jesus is of a different sort than we might understand in our own political context today. 

            More later.

            Peace, Pastor Peter

Moses and Predicting Jesus

June 9, 2021              John 5: 46

  ⁴³I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. ⁴⁴How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God? ⁴⁵Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. ⁴⁶If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. ⁴⁷But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?’

6After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, also called the Sea of Tiberias.  ²A large crowd kept following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing for the sick. ³Jesus went up the mountain and sat down there with his disciples. ⁴Now the Passover, the festival of the Jews, was near.  ⁵When he looked up and saw a large crowd coming towards him, Jesus said to Philip, ‘Where are we to buy bread for these people to eat?’ ⁶He said this to test him, for he himself knew what he was going to do. ⁷Philip answered him, ‘Six months’ wages would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little.’

            So there is an interesting challenge.  Moses wrote about Jesus.  We have fairly clear prophetic passages in Isaiah that refer to the birth of Jesus as well as other Gospel references back to the Old Testament.  How clearly does Moses refer to Jesus?  That becomes a huge undertaking.  In Genesis 3, it speaks of him crushing the serpent’s head.  In Exodus, it speaks of the blood of the lamb leading to the angel of death passing over those where the blood is displayed.  Throughout the books are the commandments for animal sacrifice fulfilled in Jesus.  So there is a lot written there.  The book of Hebrews picks up on some of those connections very powerfully.

            If the Leadership truly believed Moses, they would believe in Jesus, that is the accusation.  They claim to believe in Moses, but, according to Jesus, it is Moses who accuses them, because they do not truly-or they would believe in Jesus. 

            In the grand scheme of God’s Plan, the Coming of Jesus was established before the creation of the world.  So this moment of revelation, this moment of Jesus being there, this was the time and the place for Jesus’ coming.  This challenge to the Leadership is a double edged sword.  On the one hand, it picks up on the prophetic predictions of the coming of Jesus found in the Old Testament.  On the other, it begins to fuel the resentment of the Leadership that will lead to Jesus’ death and resurrection. 

More later

Peace, Pastor Peter

Tracking on What is the Glory of God and Not of God

June 4, 2021              John 5: 44-45

39 ‘You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. ⁴⁰Yet you refuse to come to me to have life. ⁴¹I do not accept glory from human beings. ⁴²But I know that you do not have the love of God in you. ⁴³I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. ⁴⁴How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God? ⁴⁵Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. ⁴⁶If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. ⁴⁷But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?’

6After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, also called the Sea of Tiberias.  ²A large crowd kept following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing for the sick. ³Jesus went up the mountain and sat down there with his disciples. ⁴Now the Passover, the festival of the Jews, was near.

            I had to read verse 44 a few times to decipher what Jesus was saying.  Flip the first part, before the ‘and’, to something like “when you accept glory from one another, how can you believe?” (in God); “when you not seek the glory that comes from God alone?”  The issue at play here is not just that they do not seek after God, but that they have replaced God, one with another.  The reward is ‘glory’.  How do we define that? 

            If we go to the Confessions, specifically the Westminster Shorter Catechism, glorifying God is defined as the chief end of humanity, that and enjoying God forever.  “How” is given answer in question 2, and I quote “The Word of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.”

            So…why go to the Confessions?  Why not do a word study in Scripture ourselves to see what it means about God and Glory?  Have you heard the expression about reinventing the wheel?  The Confessions and Catechisms and Statements of Faith that are gathered together in the Book of Confessions of the PCUSA are the primary guide to understanding the big sweeps of the Bible.  Each was written in a time and a place and for a purpose important to the Church in that moment. 

            The Westminster Standards, the Shorter and Longer Catechisms and the Confession, were all written to become law in England in the time after the Reformation.  They were written in Westminster Palace and Westminster Abbey, where the English Parliament sits and where Royal rituals take place in London.  It is a lesson in English history to read how these became and then un-became British law, but their purpose was clear, to establish what they believed and how to teach it in their churches.  So to use the Shorter Catechism is to use THE premiere confessional foundations of the Presbyterian tradition.

            So the rule for glorifying God comes from the Bible.  And Jesus narrows the scope for us.  He tells them that it is not Jesus himself accusing them before the Father, but rather the accusations come from Moses-upon whom they set their hopes. 

            Moses is the traditional author of the Torah, the Law, the first five books of the Bible.  It is from these books that the entire Jewish law code of the time of Jesus was drawn.  This legal code covered the moments, covered the precedents, covered the issues that the Torah did not.  At best, it filled in the gaps, at worst, it created a minutia of legal bindings that tied the people in knots. 

            Let us return to the issue of Sabbath, which we looked at again a couple posts back.  Jesus was all for the power of the Lord, on the day of the Lord, to heal the man who was in need.  The Leadership was all about how Jesus transgressed the rules of the Sabbath in telling the man to dare to pick up his bedroll, to do work on the day of Rest.  They were very proud of their laws, that is where they found their glory, in one another, creating this religious system built, in their minds, on the law of Moses.

            This goes to why Jesus has come in the first place, to bring the faith back to God the Father.  In this debate with the Leadership, he is showing how it has gone astray.  More focus on Moses next time.

            Peace, Pastor Peter

It Seems the Jewish Leadership Is Prepared to Accept A Lot from Jesus, But Not All, Not the Truth.

June 3, 2021              John 5: 43

39 ‘You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. ⁴⁰Yet you refuse to come to me to have life. ⁴¹I do not accept glory from human beings. ⁴²But I know that you do not have the love of God in you. ⁴³I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. ⁴⁴How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God? ⁴⁵Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. ⁴⁶If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. ⁴⁷But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?’

6After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, also called the Sea of Tiberias.  ²A large crowd kept following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing for the sick. ³Jesus went up the mountain and sat down there with his disciples. ⁴Now the Passover, the festival of the Jews, was near.

            So Jesus just told the leadership they do not have the love of God in them.  But that is not a dropped in verbal smiting.  He goes on to explain why.  Jesus has come in the name of the Father and is not accepted.  However, if another comes in his own name, that’s cool.  So, if Jesus were there preaching in the name of Jesus, a prophet of the Lord, let’s say.  If Jesus came as the new Elijah, let’s say.  Both of these would have been acceptable to the leadership?  Heck-fire, they may even have accepted him as Messiah.  (These three names go back to the first chapter.  The Leadership challenged John the baptizer with these possibilities as they tried to establish his credentials).

            It is arguable that Jesus fulfilled all three of these expectations.  There are implications in the Old Testament that all three of these, Elijah, the Prophet, and the Messiah, were coming. 

            What appears to be the disconnect, however, is God the Father.  That kind of authority on Jesus’ part, that seems to be too much for the Leadership to take.  So, if we stretch out the implications of what Jesus is saying, if Jesus came in his own name.  If Jesus claimed to be a big wheel of religious intent and intensity, given what he has said and accomplished, that would have roused the interest even of the Leadership. 

            Remember the incident where Jesus drove out the moneychangers from the temple.  That was not condemned for the actions of a violent man.  Rather, the question was by whose authority did he come.  The implication is that if the authority was right, the actions were proper.  If Jesus pronounced that he came in the name of Jesus, that probably would have justified it, in light of the rest of his words and actions.

            But the ideal that Jesus brings, his authority and connection to the Father, those are too much for the Leadership to accept.  The people seem ready to accept Jesus at whatever authority Jesus is claiming.  They see the results, they know something from God is happening here.  The Leadership see it as well, how can they not?  But Jesus has gone beyond reasonable expectations. 

            In the long view, an overview of the entire story of Jesus, this is usually put down to jealousy, political and religious jealousy of Jesus’ hold on the people as God’s own versus the presumed religious and political leadership of the priests and so forth.  And there is certainly truth in that. 

            But if we follow where the disputations with the Leadership really got tense, it was not at the cleansing of the Temple, it was healing the cranky man on the Sabbath.  Remember, Jesus told him to take up his bedroll and go home.  That is work of a kind forbidden by tradition on the Sabbath.  The man passed the buck to Jesus.  When a guy heals you of decades of invalidity and he tells you to pick up your bed and go, you do.

            But in so doing, it was not that Jesus was breaking the Sabbath.  There were ways to fix that kind of unlawful behavior.  It was that Jesus would not even acknowledge he was in the wrong.  He kept doubling down.  The one who has authority to dictate the terms of the Sabbath, to dictate the terms of the law of Moses that, up to know, has been the foundation of Sabbath legalities, that’s the authority Jesus is claiming.  And that is undermining the authority that the Leadership claims for itself.  That is why things between them are tense.

            More later.

Peace, Pastor Peter

When The Words of Jesus Lead to Sinful Response

June 2, 2021                John 5: 42

39 ‘You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. ⁴⁰Yet you refuse to come to me to have life. ⁴¹I do not accept glory from human beings. ⁴²But I know that you do not have the love of God in you. ⁴³I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. ⁴⁴How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God? ⁴⁵Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. ⁴⁶If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. ⁴⁷But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?’

6After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, also called the Sea of Tiberias.  ²A large crowd kept following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing for the sick. ³Jesus went up the mountain and sat down there with his disciples. ⁴Now the Passover, the festival of the Jews, was near.

            It seems a presumptuous thing for Jesus to say to the Leadership, that they do not have the love of God in them.  Not exactly the way to win friends and influence people.  It is not that this comes out of nowhere.  Jesus has been laying out for them his own relationship to the Father, one that they are not willing to accept.  And yet Jesus does attract them in droves.  Whether they are fascinated or challenged or a combination of both seems to be what drives them.  The challenge will take over as they come to a point where they will conspire against his life.

            It may seem like a minor thing, but Jesus does not deny their belief in God, only their active life within God-through Christ.  Because Jesus is not seeking to establish a new religion.  He is seeking to fulfill the promises made in the Jewish faith to this point.  The importance of understanding that is what connects and divides the Christian faith from the Jewish faith to this day.

            There are Jewish congregations that accept Jesus as presented in the gospel.  But to my understanding, they do not generally call themselves “Christian”.  The history of Christianity toward Judaism is powerfully violent and bloody.  The title that I have heard used it “Messianic Jews”, Jews who have accepted Jesus as the Messiah. 

            The connection that my brain has made is that the Leadership to whom Jesus is speaking does not understand the new paradigm of religion that Jesus is bringing in, a new paradigm that continues to stand outside Judaism to this day.  I grew up not understanding why our faiths had not come together in Christ.  History made that abundantly clear. 

            And yet to read on in the New Testament, especially in Paul’s letter to the Romans, where, by his time, there is an acknowledged break between the followers of Jesus and the Jewish faith that found its leadership in Jerusalem, there is a tension present.  This tension runs against a prevailing ‘all or nothing’ of modern theology.  All-believe in Jesus, or nothing-condemned to hell.  There are Christian leaders who will pronounce that those of the Jewish faith, as with everyone else who does not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, are condemned to hell.

            Why spend time ruminating on things like this?  What if I said that this verse gave us permission, in Jesus name, to oppress and ostracize those of the Jewish faith?  But wait, that takes this verse hugely out of context.  Exactly.  But that is the power of faith, or rather, ‘faith’.

            Matters of faith touch deep in the human soul, eternal life and death and so on, judgement and the love and acceptance of God, justification from our sins and for our very existence.  Forgiveness as a matter of mercy becomes a prerequisite in the absolute right and the absolute wrong. 

            I am of a point of view that if I get it wrong, and do not condemn someone to hell who deserves to be, that the Lord can be merciful about things.  But what I have so much more trouble stomaching is a Christian point of view that feels it can take the judgement power of God, even unto death itself, and carry out such judgement on the world in the sure and certain knowledge of their own salvation and forgiveness in Jesus if they get it wrong. 

            It also reminds me of the power of Jesus’ words, for sin and for salvation.  More later.

Peace, Pastor Peter

If Jesus Was Frustrated Then When People Refused To Accept Him, How About After Generations Of Christian Violence?

May 26, 2021              John 5: 40-41

39 ‘You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. ⁴⁰Yet you refuse to come to me to have life. ⁴¹I do not accept glory from human beings. ⁴²But I know that you do not have the love of God in you. ⁴³I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. ⁴⁴How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God? ⁴⁵Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. ⁴⁶If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. ⁴⁷But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?’

            There is frustration in Jesus’ words in verse 40.  The Jewish Leadership is looking for something, it is looking for eternal life.  That is the Messianic Expectation that gives them hope against the Romans.  The idea that there will be an heir of David to sit on that great king’s throne forever.  Christianity has the idea of eternal life fairly thoroughly worked out.  It did not ever really occur to me to consider that the Jews had that same expectation, that same desire, in that time and place. 

            Where does that lack of awareness come from?  I think it is from what I know of Judaism today, distancing itself from Christianity.  And as we read Jesus here, as we progress through the New Testament, it may strike us as weird that the Judaism would distance itself from Christianity, as we developed from Judaism, through Jesus.  But to read the history between our religions since the time of Jesus, it is NO wonder to me at all that Judaism wants to keep a safe distance from Christianity.  We do NOT have a good record of dealing with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

            I have never really progressed past the military and political expectations of the Messiah at the time of Jesus, and then in focus on the ways that Jesus did NOT fit those expectations.  There is an interpretive note that “we” Christians got Jesus ‘right’ while the Jewish Leadership got him ‘wrong’.  That breeds arrogance, ‘us’ versus ‘them’. 

            Jesus seems to build on that theme when he goes on to say he does not accept glory from human beings.  I think that is a two-edged statement.  On the one edge, the purpose of humanity, according to the Westminster Standards, is to glorify God and enjoy God forever.  That is a “God the Father” thing, and Jesus, standing as an intermediary, is, I believe, on the one hand, saying that he will not accept the glory of human beings for himself over and against the Father.

            But I also believe there is another piece to this.  Refusing the ‘glory’ of human beings is meant to prevent any hint of self-aggrandizement in the eyes of the people.  It is to try and prevent exactly what has happened, an ‘us’ and ‘them’ turning into ‘us’ versus ‘them’ in matters of faith.  As I have said, our history with Judaism is not good as a religion.

            That leads to another thing.  It was very tough for me, an American Presbyterian in the 21^st century, to look back on the blood and horror of Christian history without pointing at it and saying “That isn’t me.”  This is not limited to the times when Jews have been assaulted, exiled, and killed by Christians, many times on the excuse “They killed Jesus” (which is why I am careful to look at the Jewish leadership in considering Jesus’ debates).

            It is not just about how my faith has treated others, but the religious wars within my faith.  “You believe wrong therefore I will kill you.”  I do not know just how far we can remove ourselves from the love and purpose of Jesus when we fall into that kind of thinking.  And it is ‘we’.  Christians are Christians.  I have never killed anybody in the name of Jesus, so I have two choices when it comes to Christian history.  The first is to deny it, that “my” Christianity is somehow better than “their” Christianity.  Or I accept it.  This was done in Jesus’ name.  It is wrong and we are seeking to do better.

            Because that is the very nature of faith.  We have Jesus’ forgiveness and are called upon to strive to do better, knowing that Jesus will pick us up again even when we fall.  There are compelling reasons why Jesus’ words back in John “Yet you refuse to come to me to have life” still resonate today.  It is the history of violence and sin that marks our own history.  Today, we have it packed away, glossed over.  Cannot tell you the last time I used the Crusades or the religious wars after the Reformation as a sermon illustration.  There will be freedom when we do comes to terms with it.  More later.

            Peace, Pastor Peter   

Distinguishing Belief in God from Abiding in God's Word

May 25, 2021              John 5: 37-39

³¹“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. ³²There is another who testifies on my behalf, and I know that his testimony to me is true. ³³You sent messengers to John, and he testified to the truth. ³⁴Not that I accept such human testimony, but I say these things so that you may be saved. ³⁵He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. ³⁶But I have a testimony greater than John’s. The works that the Father has given me to complete, the very works that I am doing, testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me. ³⁷And the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf. You have never heard his voice or seen his form, ³⁸and you do not have his word abiding in you, because you do not believe him whom he has sent.

39 ‘You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. ⁴⁰Yet you refuse to come to me to have life. ⁴¹I do not accept glory from human beings. ⁴²But I know that you do not have the love of God in you. ⁴³I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. ⁴⁴How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God? ⁴⁵Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. ⁴⁶If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. ⁴⁷But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?’

            So there is a circular logic going on here.  The Father has testified to Jesus, the Father sent Jesus.  However, the Leadership that Jesus is talking to, they are denied this testimony.  They have never heard his voice nor seen his form nor have His word abiding in them, because they do not believe in Jesus, whom the Father sent.  How then do you achieve these things?  You believe in Jesus, to whom the Father has testified and whom the Father has sent.  To believe in Jesus is to experience who sent Jesus.  To experience who sent Jesus is to know the truth of Jesus and his testimony.  Without belief, they cannot experience who sent Jesus.  So they do not receive His Testimony. 

            A couple of interesting bits here in what Jesus is saying.  The first thing he tells them is that they, the Leadership, have never heard the voice of the Father.  This is true in the background of this age.  There has not been an ‘official’ prophet since Malachi, a couple hundred years before.  The second bit that Jesus says, “You have never…seen his form.”  That goes much further back.  When Moses was on the Mountain of God, he only saw God from the back, God’s glory being too powerful.  When Elijah went up on the Mountain of God, there was wind and fire and then God showed up in the still small voice.  The point seems to be that divine intervention is not coming directly from ‘the Big Guy’, but through Jesus.

            And then Jesus says they, the Leadership, do not have ‘his’ word abiding in themselves because they do not believe in Jesus, sent by ‘him’ (the Father).  It is something of a fine line that Jesus is drawing here.  The Leadership believe in God, that is Judaism, that is their religion.  Jesus is not comparing them to ‘Gentiles and unbelievers’, but he still needs a way to poke at their lack of faith in what has come among them. 

            He wants them to understand the transition, the fulfillment of the faith that is represented by the coming of Jesus.  It is the Messianic expectation that has been fulfilled.  It is God’s Plan that is being carried out.  It did not fall upon them cold, but came in the testimony of John the baptizer, who, by Jesus’ explanation, appears to have been accepted by the Leadership as someone of God. 

            The Leadership of the Jewish people, the educated ones, those ‘in the know’, those who are filled up with the knowledge and study of the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, they are the ones who have not been drawn across the gap of faith that would have the word of the Father abiding in their hearts, if they believed in the one that the Father sent. 

            He says this straight up in the next verse.  They search through the pages of the Old Testament because they believe eternal life is to be found in the pages themselves, instead of in Jesus, the Messiah, the one to whom the pages refer.

            So Jesus is not simply arguing them in a circle.  They are believers, but they have not made the leap of faith to Jesus.  Jesus will continue his persuasion in the verses to come.  More later.

            Peace, Pastor Peter.