Crazy Faith

1 Kings 17:7-16 Elijah and the widow at Zarephath

This text was the lectionary reading for June 8, 2010. My notes from that day indicate that I was struck, as I read the story, by the widow’s faith. I have usually heard this story preached in terms of God’s provision or faithfulness. In fact, the theme of the responsorial psalm in the lectionary is God’s faithfulness to his people. While that may be a legitimate theme in the text, the widow was the focus of my attention.

Perhaps she stood out to me because she was a mother. Elijah finds her gathering sticks to make a fire for the last meal she will make for herself and her son. “I am gathering a few sticks to take home and make a meal for myself and my son, that we may eat it – and die” (v. 12). I have never been in those sorts of dire straits. I cannot even imagine the sort of poverty that knows that death by starvation is a reality. I can picture the images I have seen from war-torn countries, particularly in Africa; pictures of women holding dying children with bloated stomachs. Perhaps this is what it was like for the widow during the drought in Israel and the surrounding areas.

But then comes the most amazing part of the text. Elijah commands her to go ahead and make this last meal for herself and her son from the little bit of flour and oil she has left. But first, he says, “make a small loaf of bread for me from what you have and bring it to me.” After she has fed Elijah, she may make something for herself and her son. Elijah then promises her that if she does this, God has told him that “the jar of flour will not be used up and the jug of oil will not run dry until the day the LORD sends rain on the land” (v. 14). The crazy thing is, she goes and does what he says!!

Why would I think this is crazy? Call me a terminal skeptic, but I can envision myself, walking back to my hut thinking, ‘ok, so he says the flour and oil won’t run out, but how can I know that? If I make him the bread, even a little loaf, and he is wrong, I will not have enough left to make another loaf and my son will starve. And if I feed my son today, I may be able to beg for food, or find something somewhere for tomorrow. But if I feed this old man, I can’t even get through today. And who is this god of the Israelites? If he’s so powerful, why do we not have rain?’

Of course that is not what the widow does. She does exactly what Elijah commanded her to do, and the outcome is exactly what Elijah said it would be. Amazing! Which makes me wonder about my own faith, or the lack of faith. I wonder how often I hear God’s voice telling me to trust him, and I make my circumstances worse by trying to figure something out in what seems to me to be a more pragmatic way. I wonder how often I don’t even listen for his voice, but just soldier on, working out everything on my own, forgetting that the Creator of heaven and earth would love to help me out. If anything sounds crazy, that does.

Mary

It’s interesting to me that in most Protestant circles, Mary the mother of Jesus gets very little attention. She may get mentioned around Christmas time, but the rest of the year she fades into the background.

During Holy Week, I am always drawn to Mary. Perhaps it is because I, like her, am a mother. All four gospel writers mention that women were present at the crucifixion. Three of the four mention that Mary was one of those women. Matthew, Mark, and Luke indicate that the women were some distance away. But John indicates that Mary was right there at the foot of the cross and that some of Jesus’ final words expressed love for his mother.

I can hardly even imagine what it must have been like for Mary that final week of his life. Did she see his interrogation before Pilate? Did she hear the whip as it cut into his back? Did she try to run to him as he groaned in agony when they hoisted the cross and dropped it into the hole with a sickening thud? When he said he was thirsty, did she long to give him a drink? As the soldier pierced the side of this child that she had raised and nurtured, did she remember the words of the old prophet when Jesus was just eight days old – “a sword will pierce your own soul too”?

Most likely, Mary saw him stumble as he carried the cross. Perhaps she covered her ears or even got physically ill as the soldiers pounded the nails into Jesus’ hands and feet.  She certainly heard the jeers of the crowd at Calvary, a crowd that only a week before had hailed him as the one who would save Israel. Maybe she even wondered if Jesus would, in fact, work another miracle, and come down from that cross.

I can also imagine that as Jesus murmured that familiar Jewish bedtime prayer, “into your hands I commit my spirit,” a prayer Mary undoubtedly taught Jesus when he was just a little boy, she completely fell apart. Flooded with memories of the little boy who laughed and played and hugged her and kissed her good-night, she could probably hardly believe this horror was happening. Perhaps like many of us who have suffered loss, she woke up the next morning hoping it was a dream, only to crash back into the wall of reality. She would never have Sabbath with her son again.

I think we tend to forget that although we know the end of the story, Mary did not. Unlike some of the disciples, Mary did not run away. She did what any good mother would do. She stayed with her son, suffering her own hellish agony while he suffered the curse of hell for her – and all of us. 


From the young girl who selflessly submitted her will to that of God, risking her reputation and her betrothal, to the mother wondering about the sanity of her son, to the agony of losing her son in a torturous death, Mary is an example of faith and obedience to God’s will. Protestants would do well to remember and reflect on that often neglected reality, and to consider what the cost of Mary’s life-long obedience might have to say to us today. 

I Won't Let Go

I recently heard a song by country music group Rascal Flatts. The song is entitled “I Won’t Let Go.” Turns out the songwriter, Jason Sellers, is a Christian and had more than human relationships in mind as he wrote the song. My daughter got the album for Christmas and thought I would like this song. I did like it. It touched something deep inside me, a place where I have stored memories of hurts like broken promises and broken relationships. I know my daughter shared it with me because it touched the same place in her, although her memories of brokenness are still quite raw.

Isn’t it true that we all want the assurance that someone, even if it is only one person, will be there for us no matter what, through thick and thin? Don’t we all want someone who will hold us tight when life drags us down, when we are depressed and just can’t put on a happy face one more time? Don’t we all wish for someone who will keep his/her promise to stand by us forever?

I thought of that song this morning as I did my devotions. The responsive reading in the lectionary for today included part of Ps. 105:8 as the refrain: “The LORD remembers his covenant forever.” Forever. Let that sink in for a minute.

How many broken relationships are in your past? How many times have you been left out, ignored, rejected, or even betrayed? Or maybe you have felt so low, that you didn’t even feel worthy of someone’s friendship; felt that no one could possibly love you because you simply weren’t worth loving?

If you are a Christian, you can know that even when everyone around fails you, breaks promises, and leaves, God will never leave you or forsake you. Like a good parent, nothing you do can make God love you more; nothing you do can make God love you less. Human relationships should reflect this sort of steadfast love that characterizes God. But quite often they don’t.

When they don’t (and even when they do) be assured of this: God always remembers his promise to be your God forever. God really won’t let go – not now; not ever.

http://www.theboot.com/2011/03/25/rascal-flatts-i-wont-let-go-lyrics/

Love, Part 2: What does "I love you" mean?

            Before the book review interlude, I wrote a few thoughts on what it means to say “I love you” to someone and promised a ‘part 2.’ I thought it was time to get back to that. For the purpose of this particular post, I am mainly concerned with the sort of love expected in a marriage relationship where love is vowed or promised, although many of the principles apply to love in general. I ended ‘part 1’ with a question: “What is love?” My answer comes from Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth.

            If you make a list of all the ways Paul describes love, one thing is conspicuous by its absence from the list. That one thing is how we feel, our emotions. Why would Paul leave that out? Because for someone like Paul, who was raised as a Jew, love is not primarily about feeling but about doing.  How do you love God? By doing what God asks you to do. Love therefore, is a verb. That is the point of 1 Corinthians 13.

            Some modern wedding vows end with “as long as our love shall last” rather than the traditional “as long as we both shall live.”  I guess that means that if I no longer feel all warm and fuzzy when you walk in the room, or if I am no longer attracted to you because you are bald, or wrinkled, or have a beer gut, or if I am simply tired of your unpleasant habits or behaviors – habits and behaviors I was fully aware of when I married you – I can walk away. “As long as our love shall last” is more a statement of our laziness, our unwillingness to do, than the enduring power of active love.

             If love is primarily in doing, not feeling, our behavior toward the one we say we love is what determines whether we truly love that person. The word for love used here by Paul, is the word that is also used for the self-emptying, self-expending love that God demonstrates to his people. The second person of the Trinity completely emptied himself so that we could flourish, so that we could have the life God intended us to have. Our love for each other should reflect God’s example of love, a love that gives without expecting anything in return. It is love that does not come naturally to any of us.  We need God’s grace to exercise this sort of love.

            Note the word “exercise.” Any athlete will tell you that the more they exercise, the stronger they get.  But if they stop exercising, even for a short time, their muscles will begin to atrophy and they will not be as strong and competitive.  Love is like that.  To be strong, it must be exercised – daily. 

            What might it look like to exercise love for your boy/girlfriend or spouse? It may mean sitting through a concert because you know that he loves the symphony. It may mean enduring a rainy, cold football game because she loves to watch Michigan play. It could mean letting her complain about her job for the fourth night this week because she needs someone to unload on, even though you had hoped for a romantic dinner for two. Or it could mean holding him in your arms and encouraging him when you know he is not only feeling badly about missing out on a promotion, but is trying to be “strong” and act like its no big deal. At its best, love for your partner will show itself in actions that put your needs in second place and help your partner to flourish, to be everything God intended him or her to be.

            This sort of love is frightening in some ways. It demands we give without expecting anything in return – even a nice feeling. It opens us to hurt and disappointment. But this is the love that God through the Holy Spirit helps us emulate if we rely on him. What is truly remarkable in all of this, is that when we practice “doing” love, it often happens that we find ourselves “feeling” love. In other words, if you want to ‘bring back that lovin’ feeling,’ try doing some loving actions.

Review of Rob Bell's Love Wins

Review of Love Wins

Rob Bell has written another interesting little book that raises important and difficult questions. Central to the book, as nearly everyone in the evangelical world knows, is the question of people’s eternal destiny, particularly whether such a thing as “hell” however one conceives of it, exists.

Before I give my comments let me tell you two things about myself that you may or may not know. I live about 5 miles from Bell’s church and have been acquainted with Bell’s ministry since its beginnings at my parents-in-law’s church in Grand Rapids. Many of our friends belong to or have belonged to his church. I have read one of his other books, watched most of his nooma videos, attended his church, and listened to some of his sermons. Much of what he does is good. Some is not, much like the rest of us. That being said, I tried my best to open the book with a positive attitude and give it the best possible read, despite my own past and present with his ministry and the media blitz surrounding the book.

Second, I am a member of a church that confesses the orthodox, historic Christian faith as expressed in the historic creeds of the church. But I am also someone within that broad stream who speaks with a Reformed accent.

So first, what I like about the book. It is short and easy to read. Although I spent about 5 hours reading the book because I was taking notes, I think it could be read in less than three hours without any problem. So if you are curious about the book, read it.

Bell is correct about how heaven and hell have often been presented by folks in the church. Like him, I have frequently run into people who seem to think they know precisely who will be “in” and who will be “out.” While we can know from the Bible certain things about what criteria God might use for making such decisions, we cannot know the condition of the hearts of individual persons. Only God knows that and God has the final word. To Bell’s point then, sticky notes about Ghandi’s eternal destiny  and ‘if-then’ methods of evangelism are based on assumptions about a decision that is God’s alone. Best to keep our mouths shut.

Bell is also correct about popular misconceptions some people have about where humans will spend eternity. The Christian church does not profess belief in a disembodied afterlife in some ethereal and rather boring place. The Christian church believes in “the resurrection of the body and the life in the world to come.” The world to come is nothing other than the new heavens and earth, a real physical place with buildings, dirt, plants, animals, etc. It is creation restored to God’s original intent for it.

Now for some criticism. Bell frequently blurs the lines between popular understandings of the  Christian faith and the actual teachings of the faith. It is never clear whether he is responding to popular misconceptions of hell, or the actual teaching of the church on the subject. He does this especially through the questions he raises in the book. That sort of blurring of the lines throughout the book actually leads to more distortion of the actual teaching, not less. Some call that provocative. I call it misleading.

                                                             

Bell wants people to understand that heaven and hell are not just something in the future, but here and now. As he frequently points out, people make their own heaven and hell by the choices they make. True enough as far as that goes. But once people choose their path and do not decide to deviate from that path but only become more entrenched in it throughout their lives, will they really have another chance or, as Bell suggests, numerous chances to change after death?

I can’t see how the Bible suggests any such thing.

Bell does use the Bible throughout the book to try to make his points. The problem is that he frequently ignores not only the immediate context and audience of the texts he is working with, but also the larger, overarching story of the Bible as a whole. For example, Bell offers Sodom and Gomorrah as evidence of second chances citing (incorrectly) a story in Matthew 10 where Jesus refers to Sodom (the story is in Matthew 11 and Luke 10).

But Jesus is not talking in any way about second chances. He is talking about the degree of punishment Sodom and Capernaum can expect. Capernaum is in big trouble, so it seems, because their punishment will be worse than that of Sodom. Why? Because they did not repent. The parallel text in Luke is even more clear. Rejection of the disciples is equivalent to rejection of Jesus and rejection of Jesus is equivalent to rejection of God. The message is clear: ‘If you think the destruction of Sodom was bad, yours will be worse because you have rejected me.’

Bell not only reinterprets statements like that in Matthew 11, but he also seems to carefully avoid clear statements by Jesus in the gospel that suggest that the future doesn’t look so good for those who reject him in this life. For example, just a few paragraphs prior to the Capernaum/Sodom text, Jesus tells his disciples as he sends them out that this job will not be easy. Many will reject the message they are bringing. People will hate the disciples because of the message of the kingdom. And then Jesus tells them that whoever acknowledges Jesus in front of humans beings, Jesus will acknowledge before his Father in heaven. And whoever rejects Jesus in front of humans, Jesus will likewise reject.

The issue of how Bell uses the Bible is also apparent with the various prophetic texts that he cites. It is not new news that the prophetic texts regularly speak words not just of judgment but of restoration. But every single text he cites on pages 86-7 are prophecies to God’s covenant people, not to people in general. God is promising that God is true to who God is. God keeps his promises.

But it is also not new news that these restoration texts nearly always refer to a “remnant.” The size of the remnant is unknown, thus one cannot play the numbers game. But what is clear from remnant language is that not all of God’s people will be restored and restoration awaits repentance, a turning to God.

Bell further confuses the issue by suggesting that these prophetic messages are not just for Israel; they are for all nations, suggesting that all will be saved. Yes and no. The message of anyone turning to the worship of the one true God for salvation is in the Old Testment just at much as the New Testament. Anyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved, not just ethnic Israel. Numerous examples of this are available in the Old Testament but perhaps the two most memorable are Rahab and Ruth. The point is not about physical descent from Jacob. It is about trust in and worship of the LORD. Nonetheless, salvation still entails turning from trusting other  gods to the worship of the only true God.

As for final destruction for those who steadfastly refuse to turn to God, one need look no further than one of the prophets Bell cites: Nahum. The verse Bell cites from Nahum is indeed a word of comfort but only for Israel. Nahum is a difficult book to read because God’s judgment against those who have rejected him, in this case Ninevah, is clearly severe. It is not instantaneous like that of Sodom. It is painful, tortuous destruction. And it is final. “Nothing can heal your (Ninevah’s) wound; your injury is fatal.”

The most interesting thing about Nahum is that we know from Jonah that Ninevah had been told about life in relationship to God. Ninevah, “that great city,” had been called to repentance and worship of the true God and had turned, much to Jonah’s chagrin. Apparently this didn’t last long. They were back to their cruelty and idolatry in no time. The result would be final destruction – no restoration.

One of the more disturbing parts of the book is Bell’s suggestion that “Jesus” is basically whatever you make of him, positively of course. He affirms that Jesus “is saving everybody,” but says that no one should try to box in what/who the word ‘Jesus’ means/is. He even says that “sometimes people use his name and sometimes they don’t” and that’s ok. The implication seems to be – and Bell does not say this directly – that no matter who you call on, if you are sincere in your calling and living a good life, you are basically calling on Jesus.

The logical fallacies in that sort of thinking are too numerous to go through. The larger issue is whether an idea like that has any Biblical merit. I can’t see how it does. If the name of Jesus were unimportant, why do the disciples insist on using it to tell the story? They could have saved themselves a whole lot of trouble by avoiding the name of Jesus. They wouldn’t have offended the Jewish authorities in the various towns they went to, they wouldn’t have been chased out of town or jailed, and they wouldn’t have lost their lives.

Now Bell could argue that all this was because the people, whether Jewish leaders or Roman officials or philosophers in Athens, did not like the radical message that came with the name, a message of salvation through belief in the person and work of Jesus. How does one go about separating the name, something that identifies the person, from the work? Well, the Christian tradition says that you cannot; so much so that written theologies do not separate the teaching about Jesus Christ from the work of Jesus Christ.

Aside from the obvious theological difficulties this separation between Christ and his work presents, the book as a whole is disturbing because these sorts of difficulties that run throughout the entire book. Bell is not clear. His theology is sloppy. The book has polarized so many people because of this sloppiness. I was told by a friend from Bell’s church that last week when the book was released Bell stood up in church and told the congregation that he is not a universalist. The fact that he had to announce this after just completing a book on the topic of heaven and hell demonstrates the lack of clarity in the book itself.

Lack of clarity in theology is not helpful. It is potentially harmful, particularly if people are left with the notion that believing in the saving work of Jesus Christ is optional or that however they construe “Jesus” is ok if they are good people. This is not the message of the gospel in the Old Testament, Jesus’ words, the Pauline epistles, the pastoral epistles, or the vision of Revelation.

The life God has promised – the life God intended for human beings – is available only through belief in Jesus Christ. Might God have an alternate route after we die? The Bible does not tell us and only God knows. That said, we should leave speculation about who is not in God’s presence alone. Conversely, what we can and do know is that if we acknowledge ourselves as sinners, confess our sins to God, and believe in Jesus Christ, we will (no ifs, ands, or buts) enjoy a taste of the life God intended already in this life, and look forward to abundant life in God’s presence in the life to come. Our impulse to invite people to share in that life should pervade our lives.

The final words of the book indicate that Bell believes this too. Unfortunately the arguments in the book as a whole give very little impetus for those on the fence to join us in the yard of faith.

A couple of final words now. Bell talks about the church tradition, even naming the church fathers but provides no backing, even in his “for further reading” section, for his claims. Not helpful.

Someday I would like to know why Bell has an Empire State Building sized chip on his shoulder about the institutional church. The church is redeemed, called to be holy, but frequently fails. A brief glance at church history will uncover stories of great harm done in the name of Christ. But it will also uncover stories of great good – more I think than those harmful stories. The church is also a mixed bag made up of those who truly believe and hypocrites. The Christian tradition does not deny this; it affirms it. Many of the things Bell says about people in the church are true – and unfortunate. Good teaching and theology that urge good practice in cooperation with the Holy Spirit will continue to help move us in the right direction.

If you are interested in some really clear and good teaching on the subject of heaven and hell, I would suggest two books that Bell also suggests: N. T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope and C. S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce. The first is a straight theological treatment of the subject, the second is metaphorical picture. Both are avoid the theological sloppiness of  Love Wins.

Love, Part 1

            One of the promises typically made in even non-traditional weddings is the promise to love one’s spouse. Now maybe you are thinking, ‘well of course…they wouldn’t be getting married if they didn’t love each other.’ Indeed; but what do we mean when we say ‘I love you?’ Do we mean ‘you make me feel happy?’ Or do we mean that we feel warm inside when that person is around? Or perhaps we mean that this person is the most important person in the world to us. These are all possibilities.  But I think a careful reading of 1 Corinthians 13 suggests something more.

            1 Corinthians 13 is part of a letter St. Paul wrote to the church he started in Corinth.  The Christians in the church at Corinth were fighting with each other, tearing each other up over a variety of issues. They had written to Paul about these problems and 1 Corinthians is Paul’s response.  In 1 Corinthians 12, the issue Paul is addressing is that of spiritual gifts. It seems that certain Corinthian Christians have been boasting about their spiritual gifts, lifting themselves up because of the specific gifts they had that others in their fellowship did not have. In chapter 12, Paul affirms the importance of all the Holy Spirit's gifts to the body of Christ.     

            Paul finishes his instructions about spiritual gifts by telling the Corinthians to “eagerly desire the greater gifts.” Chapter 13 tells the Corinthians what those “greater gifts are: faith, hope, and love. But most of the chapter is devoted to describing what Paul considers the greatest of all the gifts: love. Paul clarifies the point he had been making in the previous chapter by telling them that none of their “important” gifts are worth a thing without love. Love, in fact, is the greatest of all the gifts God gives his people. So what is love?  Stay tuned…..

God's Word

I was called to lead a retreat for a small group of pastors from the greater Los Angeles area. They reserved a Franciscan retreat center in Malibu. It was beautiful. The photo is of the place we had our devotional time the first morning we were there. Long before arriving, I had chosen to focus our reflection that morning on Psalm 46.

As we stood there I read:

“God is our refuge and strength,

an ever-present help in trouble.

Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way

and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea,

though its waters roar and foam

and the mountains quake with their surging. Selah.”

I have read this psalm many times, but as we paused to reflect on these words, I looked out at the vast Pacific Ocean. Then I thought about the hill I was standing on and noticed the angled layers of the hills across the small canyon indicating an uplifting of that rock at some point deep in history. I considered the fact that I was a mere 60 miles from the San Andreas fault. I suddenly realized that right there and then, the earth really could give way, the mountains really could fall into the heart of the sea, the waters really could roar and foam, and the mountains really could quake. I was awestruck and felt unsettled. Maybe the psalmist felt something similar.

But as I read on, my unsettled feelings were quieted by the assurance that even though there is chaos on every side, God is with us. God is our refuge, our fortress, our strength. We are helpless in the face of the power of nature and nations. But God merely lifts his voice, and the earth melts. This powerful word of God is the same word that created us, redeemed us, and will one day complete the new creation that has begun in us. Our hope in the promise of the new heavens and new earth is secure because of the power of God’s mighty word.