Jim West and Matthew Burgess have been involved in a conversation: The Role of Credentials in Biblical Interpretation. Matthew started the conversation HERE and Jim responded HERE. Matthew then posted a second time HERE and Jim once again responded HERE.

I’m of two minds about their discussion: First, I wish that every single Christian had the time, desire, and discipline to spend more time with their Bibles and consider matters of higher theology. However, on the other hand, every single dilettante, horrible, heinous, heretical, insane abuse of the text I have encountered has been from persons who felt they needed nothing but them and the Holy Spirit to interpret the text. For example, everyone’s favorite conservative, fundamental nutbag Steven L. Anderson.

I would like to offer two thoughts on the subject. One theological and one from the world of biblical studies.

First, theological. I would suggest that the biblical model we have of the church is of a body. That means one body but different parts. Perhaps, one of the most single divisive, incorrect ideas that has pervaded many Christians mind sets in the modern era is the church as a single celled amoeba: All Christians should look, act, and be the same way. Mix in the ideology that democracy is Christian and a can of worms for stupidity is opened. Simply put, some have been given the gift of teaching and some haven’t. Unfortunately, in our narcissistic, individualistic culture too many people are ‘teaching’ and have pulpits who clearly do not have that gift… and yes, some are blogging.

I would also add that the best disposition a teacher can take is that of a student. There is no subject on which I am the authority except being the chief of sinners. When I come to a subject matter there is always a voice that I should and will listen to. The hallmark of the amateur is the appeal to no greater authority than themselves. Just as important, every answer should lead to new questions. If you have on your own figured out what a text ‘really means,’ and you do not need any of them ‘book learners’ to obscure the ‘truth’ with any of them there facts: you’re probably a dilettante and should not be teaching.

Second, biblical studies. Heck, I like biblical studies so much I’ll give two examples! First a quick one, from a bad translation of the Bible that is ridiculously tendentious: the Personal Promise  Bible. This translation of the Bible is only possible if you ignore the original languages, and any sort of socio-historical studies, and import modern ideas that would have been foreign and repugnant to the authors of the Bible.

Second, Matthew 18:18 reads “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Now, if like me, you grew up in any sort of charismatic circles you have heard this verse used for all sorts of sermons and arguments pertaining to ’spiritual warfare’ and binding the devil. As an aside to any charismatics that might wander here: if y’all keep binding the devil in Jesus’ name how the Sheol does he keep getting free?

Anyways, if one bothers to do any sort of investigation on this verse one will find out that Jesus is using Jewish court language. Basically, legal issues were decided in Jesus’ time by elders in the synagogue. Jewish people believed that the authority of heaven was invested in their decisions, and that Torah observant leaders would make decisions that were already decided in heaven in accordance with the heavenly court. Therefore, Jesus is giving his disciples the freedom of deciding on legal matters and declaring that whatever they conclude will be in accordance with a heavenly decision.

I believe this has all sort of implications on theology and interpretation; however, it becomes pretty clear, pretty fast that this verse has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with with some modern, misguided attempt at control by control freaks played out in the spiritual realm. Listen to their language: “I”M binding, I’M casting down, I’M claiming… in jesus’ name.” No thank you…

So Jim, you’re not alone: the Bible is dangerous in the hands of the untrained, those who do not have the gift of teaching should listen to those that do, and those that are untrained in the field of biblical studies should listen to those that are. Only the untrained believe training is of no use, and that is the core trademark of the dilettante.

I have been tagged by Doug concerning Ken Brown’s 5 book meme.

The rules:

1. Name the five books (or scholars) that had the most immediate and
lasting influence on how you read the Bible. Note that these need not
be your five favorite books, or even the five with which you most
strongly agree. Instead, I want to know what five books have permanently changed the way you think.
2. Tag five others.

Let’s see… as usual with memes, I’m going to make a slight modification: I am going to name five books that have affected me for both biblical studies and theology–as separate entities–seeing that I have one foot in the world of biblical studies and one in the world of evangelicalism, and I’m going to ignore the tagging anyone part.

Wait, I take that back: I tag Jim West five times. He has to do the meme now, doesn’t he?

Biblical Studies

5. God’s Word in Human Words by Kenton Sparks: A good argument for a healthy relationship between biblical studies and theology can be found in the pages of this book. Not perfect, but I cannot recommend it highly enough.

4. Windows on the World of Jesus: Time Travel to Ancient Judea by Bruce Malina: This book definitely changed how I understood the social world of the first century. Interesting argument style as it places modern people in first century social situations. Not individuals but community, honor /shame as primary values, etc = significant shift in a modern person’s hermeneutical lens while reading ancient texts.

3. Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee : the Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis by Richard Horsley: The book that first brought the geographical and ideological distinction between Galilee and Judea to me, amongst other things. Invaluable.

2. How to Read the Bible by James Kugel: Simply put, “THIS IS THE RED PILL OF BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO ENTER THE MATRIX: IGNORE THIS BOOK!!!!!!” The book responsible for creating the awareness for there being two distinct categories in this present reflection. As Kugel puts it: biblical scholars and conservative interpreters are essentially reading two different Bibles (e.g., Mosaic authorship vs. the implications of JEDP).

1. 1 Enoch by George Nickelsburg: What more can be said about Dr. Nickelsburg here that has not been said elsewhere? If I was to have one-tenth of the academic career that he has enjoyed I would consider it a rousing success. He is the mountain that anyone working on Enoch must walk around and consider. I began to investigate Genesis 6:1-6, which led to Bauckham and his WBC commentary on Jude, which led to Nickelsburg and his Hermeneia commentary… and my academic career has never been the same.

Theology

5. The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides: Some good suggestions for how we talk about God if there is no Messiah. Apodictic theology made me seriously re-consider some elements of my own theological articulations.

4a. Ruthless Trust: The Ragamuffin’s Path to God by Brennan Manning: In my opinion: Manning’s best work. Some invaluable suggestions on proper God talk.

4b. On Job by Gustavo Gutierrez: Liberation theologian? Check. Brilliant insights and suggestions on how to properly speak of God? Double, triple, and quadruple check!

3. The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis: Could there be other works of his here? Yes. “The Abolition of Man” comes to mind with some of its brilliant observations; however, this small booklet is absolutely packed with some amazing insights on how we consider God,and the language we use in such a pursuit.

2. Theology for the Community of God by Stanley Grenz: My primary reference when I am considering technical theological ideas. As a hermeneutics and theology student I was also deeply influenced by Grenz and Olson’s 20th Century theology.

1. Orthodoxy / The Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton: Chesterton writes like I wish I could write, and his observations and the tone he adopts through his works is something I have tried to copy in some of my own theological reflections… without much success. My hope is that one day I could write one paragraph with as much insight and wit that his books are ridiculously jammed full of.

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

“It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved.”

~ Galileo Galilei

For you jokers out there–and yes, Jake and Brian I am looking your way–I am not talking about one of my own posts, or this post, though there have certainly been some that I should have thought through a bit more before I hit the ‘publish’ button. Today I’m talking about a post from Tim “The World’s Most Famous Christian Blogger” Challies. Not so sure about the nickname, but whatever.

Anyways, Challies and his ilk (like the pyromaniacs) are a good example of what I don’t like about the web presence of Reformed theologians and amateur Reformed theologians. In a nutshell: often they are answering questions that nobody is asking. But it’s not just the pointless posts, many times it’s the manner in which these posts are written:

Authoritative, speaking in the place of God, demeaning, and angry.

Let me predicate the rest of this by saying I’m OK with little ‘r’ reformed theologians. It’s usually just the big ‘R’ ones that get on my nerves, and if I was to express it technically I would say that they usually mix up first order practice and second order reflection. They confuse the first order practice or embedded theology that you live day to day with the second order reflection or deliberative theology that characterizes teaching – academic and Church. Second order reflection is important as we critically reflect on what it means to be the people of God and consider the Scriptures entrusted to us. However, the problem with putting second order reflection before first order practice is that it will always lead to intellectual and spiritual arrogance. Which is perhaps the very worst place for a supposed follower of Jesus to be.

J.I. Packer in his book “Knowing God” writes:

For the fact that we have to face is this: that if we pursue theological knowledge for its own sake, it is bound to go bad on us. It will make us proud and conceited. The very greatness of the subject-matter will intoxicate us, and we shall come to think of ourselves as a cut above other Christians because of our interest in it and grasp of it; and we shall look down on those whose theological ideas seem to us crude and inadequate, and dismiss them as poor specimens. For, as Paul told the conceited Corinthians, ‘knowledge puffeth up…if any man thinketh he knoweth anything, he knoweth not yet as he ought to know’ (1 Cor, 8:1). To be preoccupied with getting theological knowledge as an end in itself, is to approach Bible study with no higher motive than a desire to know all the answers, and is the direct route to a state of self-satisfied self-deception.

Sound like any big ‘R’ reformed theologians you’ve run into? Throw into the mix their, usually, Cartesian epistemology and their insistence that they are above any Enlightenment influences and you have a toxic mix that Packer describes quite adequately in the above paragraph.

Let me give you two pieces of advice that will enable you to tell if you are on plot with the ‘theology’ of the Bible or if you may be off the script a little bit. Matthew tells the story of the Sadducees and the Pharisees testing Jesus:

When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets”(Matt 22:34-40).

Now if I was going to distill Jesus’s response it would basically be this: Love God, Love people. Not have all the right answers. Not not do all the wrong things. Not read the right books. Not be angry at the right people. Not go to the right church. Not claim the correct Reformer as your spiritual mentor. Not read the correct systematic theology book. Not believe in predestianation or double-predestiantion, but: Love God, Love people.

That’s what first order practice is: Love God, Love people. If that’s missing it doesn’t matter what you ‘know’. As Paul wrote to the church in Corinth “ If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing” (1 Cor 13:1-3).

As an example of a noisy gong or clanging cymbal I return to “The World’s Most Famous Christian Blogger” and his recent post “Don’t Take Your iPod to Church!” Challies has noticed “a disturbing trend” in the church recently: people reading their Bibles in church on their iPhone or iPod. Is that the fifth seal or the sixth seal of the apocalypse? I can never remember.

You have people in church reading their Bible, and Mr. Pedantic wants to take umbrage with the device they are reading because books are the perfect technology.

If your ‘theology’ is so out-of-whack that what is truly a ‘disturbing trend’ in church is that people are coming to church–which with current numbers we should be estactic about–and reading their Bibles–which with the Bible familiarity I experience from many persons we should be estactic about–but it’s on a format you do not like: you have officially lost the plot (cf. 1 Cor. 13 1-3).

Jesus tells another story that I wonder if those that confuse second order reflection and make their knowledge and need to be right an idol in their life should not be a whole lot more concerned about:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers’ (Matt 7:21-23). (SBV: “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not hate all the right things and believe in predestination…”)

Love God, Love people: On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

ChristianAudio Free Audiobook Download of the Month

Christ Plays in Ten-Thousand Places
by Eugene H. Peterson

If for some reason you ever need a reason to demonstrate how skilled or intentional Paul was in some of his communication then let me give you an example from Romans. There are three briefs items for consideration.

First, Pauline authorship of the letter to the Romans is almost universally undisputed, and the few who have argued to the contrary have been unable to sustain their argument in a manner to seriously convince the larger body of scholarship.[1]

However, the role of Tertius, the amanuensis (scribe), is less clear: “ἀσπάζομαι ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ Τέρτιος ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἐν κυρίῳ”; “I greet you, I Tertius, the one writing this letter, in the Lord” (Rom 16:22).

There were three different practices in antiquity of dictating a letter

1. The dictator would give the scribe the general themes of his letter and the scribe would have great freedom in filling in the body of the letter
2. The scribe used a style of short hand during dictation, and later the amanuensis would write up the document in full
3. The dictator would speak very slowly waiting for the scribe to write in full[2]

The first option given above is not very likely; the second or third are more probable given the many similarities between Romans and other Pauline letters that, as far as we know, were not written by Tertius.  The second option could raise some questions as to style; however, the letter could have been dictated slowly.

Pliny the Elder reports of Julius Caesar dictating up to four letters at once if the matter was serious and up to seven if he was relaxation,[3] therefore, if Paul was dictating a single letter he could have brought his full attention to even the smallest of details.  I assume that Paul is the “author” of Romans and dictated it in a manner that is indicative of his own style and thought. One of the many reasons I believe this from studying Romans is examples such as 9:4.

Romans 9:4

οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλῖται, ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία καὶ ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι,

Who are the Israelites, whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the Torah, and the service, and the promises

The second item worthy of consideration is Paul’s use of the term “Israelite.” Up to this point in the letter he has used Ἰουδαῖος (Jew) for his own people and his gospel message has been Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι ( to the Jew first and also to the Greek).  What would lead to this sudden change in terms for Paul in naming his own people?

The purpose for the change in terms appears to be intentional for Paul.  The first term “Jew” was the name commonly used by outsiders and which Jews used to refer to themselves with outsiders as well.  This is reflected in pagan postclassical Greek writings in which there are many references to the Jews: most of these writings have Ioudaios for the individual Jew and Ioudaioi for the people. However, when referring to themselves among themselves, especially, in a religious sense Jews commonly used the term “Israel”.  As Dunn notes, “Since Israel is a specifically Jewish term, it is no surprise that pagan writers never use it for either past or present Israel.” Therefore we should expect this term from the Jewish Paul at this point in the letter and the direction he is taking the argumentation.

Finally, in the commentaries concerning this passage there is no shortage of discussion on some of the unique forms of words that Paul chooses to include in his list of items or privileges of the Israelite.  Why the use of υἱοθεσία?  Dunn suggests this is surprising, since it occurs nowhere in the LXX or in other Jewish writings of the period[4] (but cf. 8:15, 23).  Why νομοθεσία (which occurs here in this form the only time in the NT) instead of the ubiquitous νόμος?  Why διαθῆκαι? Does Paul mean one covenant or more than one covenant, and if so which one is he referring to?

It may be, however, that one answer supplies the solution to all of the concerns.

First, there is a pattern of assonance in the endings of the main items in the verse that is indistinguishable in English but quite clear in Greek:  ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία καὶ ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι.  This threefold pattern, called “homoioteleuton” in rhetoric, is the name given to a form of prose based on the repetition or near rhyme of the final syllables of certain key words[5]—in this case with: θεσία, α, αι, θεσία, α, αι.[6] While some scholars maintain that Paul is reflecting traditional material the list is found nowhere else in ancient Jewish literature.

If one were to maintain that the list is unique to Paul then this may be a primary example as to the skill and intentionality of the apostle as a communicator. However, not only has Paul uses a complicated assonant pattern scholars have also noticed that the six privileges of the Israelites can be broken up into three couplets:

ἡ υἱοθεσία ἡ νομοθεσία

ἡ δόξα ἡ λατρεία

αἱ διαθῆκαι αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι

When viewing the list in this format it appears that the individual couplets may be related.  Both υἱοθεσία (adoption) and νομοθεσία (Torah) “hark back to the exodus events when Israel was redeemed as God’s son and the covenant was ratified through the giving of the law.”[7]

The association of δόξα (glory) and λατρεία (service) may indicate the cultic relationship between the tabernacle and the Temple.[8]

While the pairing of διαθῆκαι (covenants) and ἐπαγγελίαι (promises) suggest the “covenants of promise mentioned in Ephesians 2:12[9], and Schreiner suggests that “With this pair of terms Paul moves beyond the past blessings of Israel to the future promises given to them.”[10]

If it is accepted that Paul dictated Romans to Tertius, a process which would go very slowly, and that this list in 9:4 is unique to Paul–and at the time there is no evidence to the contrary–then this verse may be an excellent example of the intentionality and skill of Paul the ancient rhetorician.

[2] Schreiner, Romans, 2.

[3] E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004) 66.

^[4] Dunn, Romans 9-16, 526.

[5] Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism (Louisville, KN: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 82.

[6] Jewett, Romans, 556.

[7] Schreiner, Romans, 483.

[8] Ibid., 484.

[9] Ibid., 485.

[10] Ibid.

Yesterday, Chris Tilling posted a brief article summarizing two important interpretive “keys” to “unlocking” Romans in a short commentary he is authoring to which Jim West responded: couldn’t the same key unlock lots of NT texts? I thought I would weigh in with my two cents.

In his book How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now James Kugel offers four assumptions of ancient interpreters:

1. They assumed the Bible was fundamentally a cryptic text
2. They assumed the Bible was a book of lessons directed to readers in their own day
3. They assumed the Bible contained no contradictions or mistakes
4. They believed the entire Bible was essentially a divinely given text

Kugel then goes through great lengths to demonstrate how these assumptions affected the interpretations of many ancient authors. My only beef with Kugel is that at the time period he is writing on I think it would be much more appropriate to speak of sacred texts rather than Bible as at the time there was no “Bible” and different groups valued different texts, but he is writing for an audience that may not understand the distinction.

I bring this up because it seems to me that these assumptions have come down from antiquity to many modern Christians except for one: assuming that the Bible is a fundamentally cryptic text. Instead, for modern Christians the belief that the Bible is simple dominates, so a “plain” reading of Scripture is favored in a lot of circles. Therefore, I would posit that the four interpretive assumptions of many modern evangelical Christians look something like this:

1. They assume the Bible is fundamentally a simple text easy to understand by the Holy Spirit
2. They assume the Bible is a book of lessons directed to them
3. They assume the Bible contains no contradictions or mistakes
4. They believe the entire Bible is essentially a divinely given text in its canonical form

This set of assumptions is what characterizes much modern preaching, and number one informing number two is where the majority of dilletante dreck comes from.

I point this out because Tilling’s two keys, while a given for any biblical scholar in its interpretive approach that is to say thinking historically and trying to recapture Paul’s thought world, are very far outside the approach to the text that the uninitiated, unaware, and untrained take. When you believe that Paul wrote Romans for you the actual events in Rome and the salvation history of Israel are probably pretty far from your interpretive world.

So the end of the matter is this: Chris and Jim are both right… it just depends on who the audience is.

Well known pastor Bill Hybels begins his book The God You’re Looking For with a court room scene in which the prosecuting attorney presents a case for the non-existence of God because bad things happen to people. Now in theology and philosophy this is what is called a theodicy: the attempt to answer the problem of evil.

However, Hybels uses it as a basis to argue about God’s existence. Hybels does not directly answer the theodicy problem. He argues God exists regardless of these horrible problems. So for Hybels at this point you have a God that exists and horrible things happening. Then Hybels in perhaps one of the worst statements a Christian could make when theodicy is on the line writes:

He’s the God who has orchestrated every event of your life to give you the best chance to get to know Him, so that you can experience His love

Really?

Really, Bill?

Really, really?

Did you have the six year olds in your Sunday school class proof read the theology in this book or something?

You set up the problem of how can a good God allow bad things to happen and your response is, “He’s the God who has orchestrated every event of your life to give you the best chance to get to know Him, so that you can experience His love.”

OK Bill… Let’s roll with your “theology”

Do we need to maybe rethink that statement yet?

Let’s hear Bill one more time…

Isn’t the God who is responsible for everything awesome?

The problem of evil is a very old, and very real problem, that rejects any pat answers. When Christians give pat, uniformed, ill thought through answers we turn God into a cosmic rogue, which is ironic in Hybels’ case as he was attempting to talk about the amazing love of God, but instead made God responsible for every event in our lives… and not just responsible but orchestrating it!

Bill, the God that is orchestrating sin events and death in my life is not the God I’m looking for. Sorry.

However, the God that can redeem horrible sin events in my life, the God revealed in Jesus Christ, the God who can “give them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit,” I might be interested in that God.

*Sigh*… the front of the book says “pastor of Willow Creek, the Largest Church in America.” I imagine they are getting better than this on a fairly regular basis but this conception of God is terrible. I have a book in the beginning stages that deals alot with how do we talk properly about God. I may have to kick up the schedule on that one.

This blog post is inspired by a search string I received yesterday: “Is Joel Osteen full of shit?”

The short answer is yes, however, the long answer is… well, longer.

Now, if you accept Osteen’s interpretation of the Bible “you are the victor and not the victim, more than a conquer, and created and put on this earth for God to bless you with good things” then the Christian life is simply: good things will happen to you and God will bless you. This is a fixed system. If good things are not happening to you right now, just trust God more, because he has good things in store for you (For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope) and your blessing is right around the corner as long as you have faith in God and maintain a good attitude… because God can only reward those with faith.

An example of Joel’s drivel (and just an aside: how weird is his deterministic, immediate retribution, transcendent God who looks through buildings from “up there” and makes the weather nice for an outdoor Joel event?)

Anyways, Joel smiles, he uses some biblical language, and what he says sounds so good… but you know the old adage: if it sounds too good to be true it probably is, right? But the Osteen follower may retort: our God is an awesome God, there’s nothing he can’t do. Don’t limit him with your lack of faith. Don’t put him in a box. He can do anything, including fix your problems.

On the one hand I wished the universe worked that way. If I just hoped enough God would reward me and make everything in my life run smoothly. On the other, there’s this part of my Bible called the “New Testament” that makes me wonder if Joel has got past the book he is named after. You see Joel would make a heck of a pre-Christianity Jew. He operates under a very Deuteronomic understanding of reality: be good and God will reward; and yes, I suppose that was valid for those of a certain ethnicity living under a certain covenant, but… this guy came along by the name of Jesus and supposedly the rules changed.

Jesus liked to say encouraging things such as, “If they hated me they will hate you” and “In this life you will have trouble” and “take up your cross and follow me.” Does that rhetoric sound anything at all like a typical Joel sermon? When God puts on flesh and speaks in the clearest way we can understand does it comport with anything Joel has to say? The answer, of course, is no.

And that’s the big problem.

You see, one of the tenants of Christianity is that the Bible is divinely given and that we should use it as a guide to structure our believing communities around. I doubt even Osteen would argue that point, but you never know. So let’s apply Osteen’s logic to the persons of the New Testament and see how these giants of the faith fared:

Jesus: Crucified. Ok we’ll give Joel a pass on this one… he had to “atone” and all that. Suppose there was just no way around it.

Peter: Crucified upside down. Well, he was mean to those gentiles. Right?

Paul: Beheaded. I guess he just had a bad attitude, writing letters and telling people to cut off their love junk.

James (the bro): Stoned. What did he expect? He thought true religion was taking care of orphan and widows! What a fool. I guess he got what he deserved for not having a better attitude.

Stephen: Stoned. Stephen had the audacity to believe that Jesus changed the customs that Moses handed down (Acts 6:14)… and Joel bends down to pick up a rock.

How about the disciple of Jesus. I mean, they must have fared pretty well by Joel’s logic, right? They must have been rollin’ with platinum crucifixes and diamond encrusted chariots?

Uhhh… not so much.

Andrew: crucified.

Thomas: Tortured and then burned alive.

Philip: Tortured and crucified

Matthew: Beheaded.

Nathanel: Flayed and crucified

James (the other): Cast down from the Temple and beat to death with a club. Oh what victory in Jesus!

Simon: Crucified.

Thaddeus: Beaten to death.

Matthias: Stoned while hanging on a cross. How bad was this guy’s attitude if he had such a bad disposition that God had to stone him while he was hanging on a cross. Matthias if you just took that frown and turned it upside down you could have been Caesar. Instead? Well, I guess you just got what you deserved.

If there are any Osteen fanatics that are still reading and are starting to think (I know that the theology muscle in your brain hasn’t been flexed in awhile. Don’t get scared and run off now, you’ve made it this far: just a little more), “How can this be?” Let me give you a little different advice than what you’ve heard from Joel. A simple saying that you can carry with you no matter what your circumstances are. Are you ready?

Being a follower of Jesus doesn’t change how the world relates to us. Being a follower of Jesus changes how we relate to the world.

Read that again and think about it.

You see, Joel’s promise, and others like him, is that the world will suddenly start relating to you differently. Suddenly, you will be wealthy, healthy, and whole. But the life of the Christ follower is changed from the inside out not the outside in. Joel’s perversion of the gospel could only make sense as God’s will to the elite of history in opulent modern western society. It is the wolf of the Secret dressed in the sheep skin of biblical language.

I worked on sermon series with my father very closely a few years ago titled Thoughts on a Grace Filled Life. The rest of the words in this post are his:

God’s plan in creation has been marred by sin, and so life may be, for me, a long way from what I might want it to be. The truth of it is that I may end up dealing with sickness, deformity, rejection, loss, lack, abuse, betrayal or a thousand other things…  (the loss of a child, a parent who has disappeared into the dementia of Alzheimer’s, the pain of divorce, the list goes on and on…)

“Why should I serve God?  What’s he done for me lately?”

Unfortunately, you can never get the “right” answer to the “wrong” question…

The reality is that not every good decision I make results in life becoming easier and better… sometimes it’s quite the opposite.

Not every offering makes me wealthy…

Not every prayer makes me healthy…

Not every demonstration of character keeps me from harm…

Not every truth told brings me honor…

But rightly understood none of those things can rob me of my serenity or my trust…  Because I’m not looking for grace in my world, I’m a follower of Christ who, by His grace, is bringing grace to my world…

Oh, and by the way. Whoever you are out there in internet land: Yep, he’s full of it.

Being a follower of Christ doesn’t change how the world relates to us. Being a follower of Christ changes how we relate to the world.

HT: P & P for disciple info. Dad for procreating and sermon extract.

I know he’s a Scientologist, but who can refute the brilliant argument he gives in this video?  No one I say.  No One!

Amen, John. Amen…

Acts 10:9-15:   About noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray.  He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance.  He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners.  In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air.  Then he heard a voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.”  But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.”  The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.”