Several times in the book of
Acts, Christianity is referred to as
"The Way." I love that phrase, and
I almost can't explain why, except to say
that it's concise and accurate. It is
the way, not a way. Christianity is the
way to live a complete, full, abundant life. It's not just another
in a long line of religious choices. And it's a
way, not a hobby, not a club, not a ritual, but
a way of life. It's not being commanded to bathe in a filthy river, kiss a wall, or visit a certain city. It's not refusing a blood transfusion that will save your life. It's not denying that pain exists. It's about being real.
I know it's hard, but if you're a non-Christian and you
want to evaluate Christianity, don't look at Christians,
look at Christ. Pick up a bible, turn to the gospels, and read what Jesus said and did.
Jesus quotes like "Anyone who follows me must hate
their mother and father" are daunting to say the least.
And I often think that Jesus was naive or exagerrating
or something, but he was right on the money that these
ways he was teaching would sever families. I think
it's maddening to make non-Christians understand where
I'm coming from sometimes, whether it's my friends,
acquaintances, or my father.
Anyone who says the Bible is always literal is wrong.
No, we aren't to forgive our brother exactly 490 times.
Jesus and other Biblical people used all kinds of
figures of speech. Whether the Bible is historically
accurate/inspired by God/etc. is a whole different story,
and it's stupid to confuse the two.
C.S. Lewis-"The first thing to get clear about Christian
morality between man and man is that in this department
Christ did not come to preach any brand-new morality
...Really great moral teachers never do introduce new
moralities: it is quacks and cranks who do that."
"If you are a Christian, you do not have to believe
that all the other religions are simply wrong all
through. If you are an atheist, you do have to believe
that the main point in all the religions of the whole
world is simply one huge mistake."
Many people are more than willing to say that some of
what Jesus said and did was not original, and somehow
that makes it doubtful that he was the son of God. But
these people misunderstand something crucial about
Christianity--that God could have sent any man or woman
to earth anywhere at any time to redeem creation, and
the result would have been the same. Christianity is
universal and eternal. As C.S. Lewis wrote, "'Do as
you would be done by'...is meant for all men at all
times..." So it's really no big deal that Jesus quoted
Old Testament scripture or that people (even
non-Christians) quote the golden rule today.
I pity people who won't get blood transfusions (even if
it would save their lives!) because the Bible says
"abstain from blood." It's just a hunch, but I think
Paul was talking about drinking blood. I'm pretty sure
they didn't have transfusions back then. Even if Paul
was somehow talking about transfusions, shouldn't we
take Jesus' advice over Paul's? Jesus said "It's what
comes out of a man that defiles him, not what goes into
him." The people back then just didn't get it, and
some still don't.
I pity people who criticize Amy Grant, either for
"crossing over" into "secular" music, "overusing"
quotation marks, or getting separated from her husband.
They will be judged for judging, perhaps. But the
thing is, you try being a mother of three, a singer
with much pressure put on you from every imaginable
side (while trying to write music that expresses how
you feel, even if it comes off as not-necessarily-Christian
(Baby, Baby was about a baby! So how is that non-Christian??!!)),
and the wife of another celebrity who probably isn't
around the house much. Then criticize if you must.
Amy Grant has undoubtedly led more people to
Christianity than most people would ever dream of
doing, and that can't be taken away, no matter what
"kind" of music she records.
Things dealing with morality can't be antiquated.
If it is wrong in 1998 to treat people badly because
their skin is a different color than yours, it was
wrong in 1948. Don't give me this, "I grew up that
way" crap.
It breaks my heart to see people claim to be a Christian and then blatantly do un-Christian things. People have to know that being a Christian doesn't mean wearing a WWJD bracelet, saying "I believe in all that stuff, I just don't think your actions have to reflect what you believe", thinking being rich means you've won favor with God, or compromising your morals to get someone saved. As Christians who know the difference between right and wrong (and don't always do what's right, but at least admit it and ask forgiveness for it), the least we can do is stand up and say, "No. I'm not your judge, but it's not judging you to point out Matthew 7:14 and expect you to live by it if you've counted the cost and decided to live the life."
The following is the best synopsis of the good news I've ever read
"What do we do with this Jesus?" That was the question on everyone's mind at the swing-point of history 2000 years ago. The Jews, the Romans, Herod, Pilate, the High Priest, even Jesus' own disciples--they all found themselves wrestling with the same perplexing question: "What do we do with this man?"
For some reason he didn't seem to fit very conveniently into anyone's agenda--personal, national, religious or otherwise. The Jews wanted a warrior king to drive the occupying Roman army out of the promised land. The Romans wanted to maintain and expand their empire over the known world. Everyone else just wanted what people everywhere have always wanted: pleasure and prosperity and to be left alone.
Jesus came along and upset all of that. He refused power. He didn't seek fame. He treated the pleasures of this life as inconsequential. He humbled himself as a servant and his selflessness alone became an indictment of all human agendas--base and noble alike. It's no wonder he made people nervous. He was like a splinter in the soul. Even those who despised him couldn't ignore him. They buzzed around him constantly, angry and perplexed.
In their defense, his presence must have been a bit overwhelming. The story of his life and death are more than we seem eager to contend with today, but people then had no choice but to physically rub shoulders with him. They walked the same dusty roads and breathed the same air. There wasn't any getting away from it. He kept popping up at odd moments, infuriating people with his compassion, perplexing them with his gentle wisdom, and frightening them with his unbearable love. And then there was the whole business about claiming to be the Son of God. Truth is, Jesus was an absolute scandal.
He taught that the least were the greatest, the rejected were the blessed, the wise were the foolish, the weak were the strong, and the secure were the lost. He taught that people should selflessly love, not just their friends and families--which would have been difficult enough--but strangers and enemies as well. He called on those possessed by their possessions to leave their wealth behind, to follow him into a life of uncertain suffering for the one promised consolation of his love. His words grew so appalling one afternoon that many of his followers gave it up for good and returned home, muttering that his teaching was too hard. They had had enough. Those who stayed were apparently in too deep already.
Most scandalous of all was the way Jesus publicly and persistently rejected the proud, self-righteous religious leaders of the day and instead drew prostitutes, half-breeds, political revolutionaries, smelly fishermen, and turncoat tax-collectors into his circle of friends--all of whom soon and somehow found themselves, by his very acceptance, transformed from what they had always thought they were into a new existence as children of God.
It's one of the eternal ironies surrounding Jesus that those who allowed the exposure of their own weakness, shame, and guilt were the very ones who were afterward able to drink with joy from the fountains of eternal forgiveness and love, while those who fought desperately to prop up their own crumbling façades of self-righteousness were in the end reduced to a ridiculous position, raging blindly against love and their own liberation.
Jesus was always hard to take that way--an insult, even--because beneath it all, it seem that everyone needed him whether they wanted to or not, prostitutes and Pharisees alike. And that really was the crux of the problem. His very nature exposed the heart and forced the hand of everyone around him so that in the end, after the haze and baggage burned away, it was all laid out pretty simply. You were left with only two possible ways of answering the question "What do we do with this Jesus?" You could either follow him, or you could crucify him.
Two thousand years of science, progress, and religion don't seem to have changed things for us all that much. The human heart is still the human heart. Nuclear power, psychotherapy, and satellite television notwithstanding, most of us still find ourselves--in our more honest moments--faced with the same troubling question and the same simple options that perplexed Christ's contemporaries.
"What do we do with this Jesus?" It's something to think about, anyway.
by Douglas Kaine McKelvey
The following is the best short-version synopsis of the good news I've ever read
Well, the Lord said let man choose and man did
Well, there's been sorrow and trouble in the world ever since
But there's hope for us still in the Word God says
If we just be smart enough to just say yes
From Alrightokuhhuhamen by Rich Mullins
As a Christian, one of the big questions you always ask yourself is, "So we believe in Jesus, we believe in the teachings of the church, but what does that look like when it's lived out?" Because surely, one of the things that Jesus said that I think we often overlook is, "The person who hears my words and does them is like the wise man who built his house on the rock." He didn't say "the person who hears my words and thinks about 'em" or "whoever hears my words and agrees with it." But he said, "Whoever hears it and does it."
by Rich Mullins
When minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session
of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual
generalities, but this is what they heard: "Heavenly Father, we come before
you today to ask Your
forgiveness and to seek Your direction and guidance. We know Your Word
says, 'Woe to those who call evil good', but that is exactly what we have
done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We confess
that.
We have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it Pluralism;
We have worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism;
We have endorsed perversion and called it alternative lifestyle;
We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery;
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare;
We have killed our unborn and called it choice;
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable;
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it
building self-esteem;
We have abused power and called it politics;
We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition;
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and
called it freedom of expression;
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our
forefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us
from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women
who have been sent: to direct us to the center of Your will and to openly ask
these things in the name of Your Son, the living Savior, Jesus Christ.
Amen."
I hate when people say Hitler was a Christian. Because
he simply wasn't. The proof? "If any one says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar..." (1 John 4:20).
Rich Mullins said this:
"I think that all these doctrinal statements that all the congregations come up with over the years are basically just not very worthwhile. I don't mean to sound mean toward the people who came up with them. I understand in the past there have been many heretical movements, and we still need to maintain sound doctrine...But I think our real doctrine is that doctrine that is born out in our character. I think you can profess the Apostles' Creed until Jesus returns, but if you don't love somebody you never were a Christian."
I hate being averse to something that leads people to
follow Jesus. But I'd be lying if I said I'm a fan of these
haunted houses that try to scare people into Christianity.
It's just that Jesus talked about spreading the good news,
not the bad news. And I think something means means
far more to people when they discover the joy of it, rather
than when they are scared into avoiding the consequence.
I think Christians take Jesus' crucifixion too lightly.
This innocent man died the most cruel death of that
(and maybe all) time, and we respond with a casual,
"Thanks for dying for my sins, dude." I mean, we show
such sympathy for victims of school shootings without
knowing them and with them being mere mortals, and yet,
we take the ultimate human sacrifice for granted. The
attitude we should have can be found in the hymn "Were
You There?": "Were you there when they crucified my
Lord...Oh, oh, oh, sometimes it causes me to tremble,
tremble, tremble."
Jesus was all about blowing people's minds and I think
we fail miserably at that, at least if we ask ourselves,
"What would Jesus do?"
I'm generally not too keen on Christian schools but they obviously have the right
idea that kids shouldn't have to leave the most
important thing in their life at home. And I think it
sucks that parents should have to pay for the privilege
of sending their children to schools that uphold the
first amendment's guarantee that no law will be made
abridging the free expression of religion. But I think
it's interesting that a Buddhist would not be turned
down if he applied to a Catholic school. In other
words, private schools are more tolerant of "religious
choice" than state-sponsored schools.
Good gravy, I'm no judge and jury, but is it too much to
ask to have at least one presidential candidate who says
he's a Christian, and there's no reason to believe
otherwise? Is it that outrageous that someone would come
along who doesn't even think anyone is a major league
a-hole, let alone say it? Or that someone doesn't favor
any kind of killing, the unborn or criminals? Or that
someone will tell us what we need to hear, but don't
necessarily want to hear, like we're greedy only to think
about our share of the budget surplus and not that fact
that we give less than a percent of the budget to foreign
aid?
Examine your motives in everything you do. Here are
some examples. Many people are quick to over-like
evolution without knowing much about it and just to
spite theists. But on the flip side, some Christians
seem to stake their faith on a complete hatred of the
idea of evolution. I think a good position to have is
not to be threatened by evolution, but to see that
evidence and common sense point toward creation, and to
decide not to be crushed if it is somehow proved that
monkeys are our ancestors.
If in church or whatever other situation your instinct
is, "Let's take this course of action because it's
tradition," stop right there and think some more.
Syndicated writer Cal Thomas recently had an article in
the Columbus Dispatch that read in part, "Students are
regularly discriminated against in school when they are
given assignments to write about their 'favorite' or
'most influential' person and they choose Jesus, only
to be told he is the one person about whom they may not
write." Don't non-believers see the irony here? A
non-Christian school official tells a child he or she
can't write about Jesus, presumably because it would
violate the "establishment" clause of the first
amendment. And let's just pretend for a minute that
granting the child's wish would constitute establishing
Christianity. But, also: to the school official,
Jesus was just some schmoe! He has nothing to do with
religion in the official's mind. So what he or she is
saying is that "you revere this person, so I'm going to
punish you by not letting you write about him." If
another student said, "I worship Martin Luther King,
Jr., so I'm going to write about him," would anyone
object? The answer is no.
The column also reads, "Valedictorians are often told
they can't give God credit for their success." Well,
they didn't tell me that. If they would've, I would
have said, "Find someone else to give the address,
then."
William Bennett is quoted in "The Coming Revival" by
Bill Bright, "The problem isn't that public schools
don't teach that Jesus Christ is the Lord; they
shouldn't do that, and they are constitutionally
prohibited from doing that. What the American people
don't understand, and I think they are right not to
understand it, is that a group of students can, [by]
law, get together and say, 'We must all advance the
Marxist revolution.'
In too many places in Amreican public education,
religion has been ignored, banned, or shunned in ways
that serve neither knowledge, nor the Constitution, nor
sound public policy. There is no good curricular or
constitutional reason for textbooks to ignore, as many
do, the role of religion in the founding of this
country or its prominent place in the lives of many of
its citizens. We should acknowledge that religion--
from the Pilgrims to the civil rights struggle--is an
important part of our history, civics, literature, art,
music, poetry, and politics, and we should insist that
our schools tell the truth about it." pp 50-51
There's a great line in the movie The Usual Suspects:
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." And I think another great trick the devil pulls is getting us to believe that we're all alone, especially when it comes to sinning. It feels bad enough to do things that are wrong, but when we feel like we're the only one who has a problem with a certain sin, it's sometimes unbearable. I think that's one reason why confession (personal and specific) is so important.
Yeah, the American flag is more than a piece of cloth,
so burning it means something more than burning a
piece of cloth. But, do we arrest people for
"disgracing" the country in other ways, like not
saying the pledge of allegiance, back when kids had
to do it? No. And, frankly, I don't want to give full respect to our country in any manner until it stops doing things like persecuting Christians and giving only one percent of its budget to help sick and hungry people in other countries.
Man, I would love to see an example of someone obeying
Matthew 5:23-24. It would be so cool to see, instead
of everyone staying mad at each other but not caring because
we love to hold grudges, people literally run out of a
church service and trying to mend a broken relationship.
The bible says, "There is one body and one spirit...one
hope...one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and
Father of us all. (Eph. 4:4-6)" And I think Paul meant
that all literally. Judaism-Christianity is the only
way to go, I think he ment. Paul knew of other "religions"
and I'm pretty sure he thought they were all crap. Today,
with a plethora of worldwide religions, I think Christians
are too accepting of the idea that there is more than
one religion, even that there's more than one God. We
often say things like, "I have my God, and Hindus have
their gods." But other gods don't exist, do they? Not
at least according to the New Testament.
I've never been too keen on the old "How sure are you
that you're going to heaven?" Mostly because I think
it makes people intimidated and/or uncomfortable and
because salvation doesn't depend on opinions. It's not
like, "How sure are you?" "49.9 percent." "Then you're
going to hell." Just remember that we aren't the
gatekeepers of hell--we don't determine anyone's
destination.
Churches who use 17th century English in their worship services shouldn't be surprised if their members only act like Christians on Sundays. It makes it easier to divide one's like between secular and sacred if one day of the week one uses the word "thy" but doesn't on any other day.
Mark 10:15 says, "
Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the
kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."
I'm amazed that in a whole other era and culture, Jesus
spoke words that resonate with truth and power today.
Just look at "Everything I needed to know I learned in
kindergarten." Or the fact that children don't hate
each other. People talk about the rising rate of crime
among young people, but whether they commit their crimes
with their parents' weapons or whatever, I'm not convinced
that it's ever totally the kids' fault.
There are some people who call themselves Christians
who say that the only acceptable bible is the KJV. I'm
no judge over people--if Jesus isn't (Luke 12:14), then I'm
certainly not. But that line of thinking is straight
bull-didgeridoo. Because, for one thing, people need
to be able to read the bible in a language or dialect they
can relate to, and not every person in 2000 can relate to
1611 English. For another thing, why the KJV? Why not the
original languages? If you believe that the bible can't
be changed, then you can't arbitrarily pick an English
version and say, "Ok, no more translations. This is the
one and only one."
Before people form an opinion about something using the theory "Jesus didn't say anything about it", they should probably consider John 21:25: "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
I love the fact that Jesus was a realist. He didn't say that
pain doesn't exist. He didn't say that you can become
a god by emptying your mind. He didn't say that if you
mind your own business and ignore people you don't like,
everything will be cool. What he did say was far
less idealistic, which for some reason makes it a lot
more believable:
"Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me,
cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to
build a tower, does not first sit down and count the
cost, whether he has enough to complete it?"
"For many will come in my name, saying, `I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray.
And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that
you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the
end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation,
and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines
and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs.
Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put
you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for
my name's sake. And then many will fall away, and betray
one another, and hate one another. And many false prophets
will arise and lead many astray. And because
wickedness is multiplied, most men's love will grow
cold."
I thank God that I'm free enough from man's traditions to not want to be called anything but a Christian. I don't mean to offend anyone who calls himself a Baptist or a Lutheran or Orthodox, but I think people create problems for themselves and others when they insist on that. It's not so horrible that a person calls himself a Lutheran and another called himself a Methodist, it's that, at best, generall such people would never think to worship with or even associate with one another, and at worst, would hate each other. Paul's attitude was that believers should be united in Christ, not divided by denominations, and I'm not willing to say that Paul was an idiot or a liar.
Of course, people stuck on denominations always have reasons, and a big point on which people disagree is baptism, especially whether or not it should be done to people of all ages or only adults. But if people actually looked at the Bible (gee, what a concept), they'd find Luke 3:16, which says, "John answered them all, 'I baptize you with water; but he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.'" So the question is, why hasn't anyone come up with the concept that if we've passed from the John era to the Jesus era (which we did a couple of millennia ago), why is water still the medium? The question of the age at which we apply the water suddenly becomes moot! And Baptists and Lutherans and whoever else can stop acting like babies (and turning non-believers off) and start impacting our world.
To me, it's pretty clear that the way things improve the
most is when people's hearts improve. That is, the problem
of stealing is best solved when there's no more desire in
people's hearts to take things that don't belong to
them, more so than installing a bunch of security systems.
(And, as an aside, I would be thrilled if a presidential
candidate admitted this, and said, "I could try to get all
kinds of great laws passed, but if what's inside of us
is greedy and vengeful and envious, then it won't much matter.")
So yes, a gun is dangerous only to the degree that someone
wants to hurt someone else with it, and alcohol is evil
only when someone drinks too much of it. And that's all
well and good and people control their own destinies and so
on...Except that, why is there Luke 17:1?:
"And he said to his disciples, 'Temptations to sin are sure
to come; but woe to him by whom they come!'"? Is Jesus
saying that the person actually doing the sinning might
not be the one (or at least the only one) at fault? Well,
make up your own mind, but think about whether it's not
so okay for people to sell pornography or to tell people
they need to have lots of money or to provide someone a
gun.
Nothing beats seeing people get what they deserve once in a while. Not because I'm spiteful or because I want bad things to happen to people, but because it's important to remember that actions have consequences, and people need to remember that as such they should do good actions. Specifically I refer to Jesse Ventura being elected governor of Minnesota. Bob Taft may have his flaws, but he's not insensitive enough to badmouth Christianity or irresponsible enough to take time off from running the state to broadcast for a stupid quasi-football league. I feel no pity for any Minnesotan who voted for Ventura (or didn't vote at all) and who is now ashamed to have him as a governor. Having "former professional wrestler" on a résumé should have been a warning signal.
Michael W. Smith writes in "It's Time to be Bold":
I've talked to plenty of teens with serious problems--
home lives that really are a mess, with abusive or
alcoholic parents. But I've also spoken with a number
of teens who don't realize how comfortable their world
is. To them, the world revolves around fashion,
fashion, fashion.
Now, I'm not one of the "unenlightened" who thinks
fashion doesn't matter at all. I don't want to look
like I'm clueless when I walk out of the house any
more than you do. But there's a line that can be
crossed, when our pursuit of fashion overtakes our
concern with living out our Christian fairth. If
you're more concerned with getting the right pair
of shoes than with seeing a close friend become a
Christian, your priorities are whacked.
Fashion has its merits but don't make it more important
than it is. Keep your priorities in line so that you
truly care about the things that matter most.
Peter said that a Christian's beauty "should not come
from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the
wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead it
should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty
of a gentle and quiet spirit , which is of great worth
in God's sight" (1 Peter 3:3-4).
Does this mean it's wrong to wear a ring? Of course
not, but it does mean we shouldn't put our identity
into jewelry. We shouldn't depend on outward
appearance to make us feel like we count.
Rich Mullins writes:
The word "sacrament" is a non-biblical word used to describe something that may be loosely or strictly biblical. It comes from the Latin sacramentum--a military oath of allegiance taken by a soldier, an oath that bound him to his mission, his post, his commander, etc. Common usage has kind of distorted the word "sacrament"...but if we look back--if we dare look back--we may find some power behind this word....
Maybe we can hear it in the chirping of crickets or in the sound of old friends laughing, feel it in the hope and the yearning within us that will not (even when we try to note it) go away. Maybe the heavens do declare the glory of God, "and the skies proclaim the work of His hands." Maybe they themselves are His proclamation, His declaration, His sacrament to love.
Some of us say that there are seven sacraments, some say there are only two. Some say that there are none--maybe we're all wrong. Maybe there are countless sacraments--countless "oaths" of God's allegiance to HIs own glory and our hope of salvation.
If you get the lame attempt at humor that is the photo at the top of the page, congratulations. You are very perceptive.
