Krissi

For some new Christians, revelation is slow and laborious. Though the Spirit actively guides each small step made toward a greater understanding of God, the process is still slow. In my opinion, those who are deeply knowledgeable or trained in an alternative way of thinking, such as secular philosophy or another religion, have the most difficulty shelving those beliefs which must be done in order to understand Jesus. Empty-minded children who can accept new ideas uncritically are easiest to teach, as Jesus noted. Likewise, emptier-minded adults are easier to reach than those who have been strongly programmed with non-Christian ideas as had been Nicodemus. It's not just ideas. It's the way those ideas are so carefully arranged in the secular/non-Christian mind. This matrix of ideas, a world-view, must be slowly disassembled and replaced ... and that takes time. Perhaps, a lifetime. Nicodemus was well-trained and educated person, a man whose mind was stiffly formed in a certain shape of thought that contradicted that which Christ was teaching. Yet the Spirit still pulled him to Christ. He felt drawn to Jesus though we don't know why. It could have been Jesus' teachings or it could have been Jesus' person, His God-status ever-so-slightly revealed. What Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God was contrary to how Nicodemus understood it. This kingdom wasn't physical or political (in total) but spiritual. Minimally, it appears that Nicodemus understood enough of what Jesus had said to know there was more to learn; Jesus' alternative way of thinking appealed and seemed potentially true. God Himself was opening Nicodemus' eyes. And his mind. Spiritual discernment is rarely an all or nothing, binary "aha" moment for people like Nicodemus. Instead, it is gradual and painful. Such people must give up much before understanding more. Again, this takes time. Nicodemus was on that first rung of understanding -- he realized he didn't understand and needed to learn more. He was humble about his ignorance. He sat at the feet of Jesus metaphorically. He came to Him under the cover of darkness. The spirit was quickening his understanding. I do believe he made the "leap" of faith but in a manner more like little jumps or steps. Nicodemus had been claimed by God. The salvific process had begun.

I've been researching, lately, groups in Christianity which venerate icons, relics and that sort of thing. Usually, these people are sensitive to the possibility of miracles and have an associated attitude that can only be described as mystical. What has struck me, so far, is that the line between mysticism/magicalism and true faith is very thin, that it's rather easy to move from believing in miracles, which most of us do, to believing in magic, which most of us instinctively avoid. Often a person, place or object associated with a real miracle becomes "charmed." We end up with magical waters that people in which believers swim or drink to be healed, magical cloths that have touched the "crypt" of Jesus in Jerusalem, magical bone fragments, crosses, pictures of dead saints, and even certain still-living miracle workers. The object substitutes for Christ. The woman with the issue of blood was so convinced that Jesus' body was magical that she crawled through the legs of a crowd to touch his dirty garment. His clothing was magical to her. She wasn't pursuing Him but the possibility that He was glowing with magical-like power that a mere touch could receive. Yet Jesus had compassion on her and seemed to sense her limitations in thinking/faith. He recognized that she was on a growing trajectory that approximated faith. The same word pistis is used to describe true faith as well as magical faith, by the way. When I read about people clutching their little icons and images, I feel something akin to pity. This is wrong (and arrogant) because I don't know where the line is between "good" and "magical" faith. Perhaps it's different for each of us? The problematic fact is that some miracles, like the water-to-wine we discussed yesterday, are very close to magic tricks. Jesus' mum didn't see it as a theological lesson or an evangelistic help, but as a way of solving a social crisis. Perhaps people were led to know Him through the miracle ... perhaps not. One tendency is to think that a more abstract faith, that is faith without objects or prompts, is somehow more real while faith that involves objects is mere magic. But, healing skeptics who would be least likely to venerate an object are also the first to try to validate a miracle by having a secular person give a so-called scientific assessment -- brandishing x-rays, before-and-after proofs, etc. Somehow an x-ray makes the miracle real (an object validates the miracle). "See ... he was REALLY healed. The physician said so." We also tend to snicker at people who claim they had been healed when obviously nothing has happened. Conversely, we also regard such premature healing claims as a sign of great faith. Just believe and after the delay, it will happen, it is said. God is testing. He's checking the quantity/quality of our faith. We have to learn something through the delay, so believe the miracle will happen and it will. I have an acquaintance who just had surgery. For the three months prior to her surgery she had been "claiming a healing" and expecting to be told, by the physician, that she had been healed. Now, she said, God chose to heal her through medicine, which is obviously true. She also claims, though, that this medical healing is miraculous. It's hard not to conclude that her belief in a healing miracle has closed her mind to the possibility there was NO miracle. God chose NOT to heal her. He chose to let her go through surgery and let modern medicine do it's thing. i don't want to be the person who deals with miracles (and spiritual gifts) by denying them altogether -- a cessationist. But I don't want to see miracles in anything that happens unexpectedly, either, or in things that are obviously done with medicine, according to laws of nature, etc. I don't want to spend my time searching for natural explanations of supernatural events ... and don't want to look for supernatural explanations for every natural event. I just don't know where that line is supposed to be drawn. A faith based on miracles is supposed to be lesser than a faith based on logic or experience, but in a way, it takes a certain faith-filled mindset to believe that God is in everything, which seems more faith-filled, to me, than that of a doubter who demands proof or refuses to believe in miracles at all.

Yes, Jesus was angry. We are reasoning backward from Jesus' character to his behavior; we excuse/explain His behavior on the grounds He is perfect, loving and God. We are looking at Jesus' behavior from our own faith-based standpoint. From a secular standpoint, what Jesus did was criminal. He destroyed property. He threatened people. He took it upon Himself to get rid of a group of people who were engaged in legal financial transactions in the temple. Since we agree with His actions, we call them "righteous," as in "righteous anger." But, had a pharisee did what Jesus did, we would have declared it to be criminal. Of course, I agree with what Jesus did. We are to be like Christ. There are times when we must engage in civil disobedience, directly threatening political power and corrupt individuals. Our anger should be "righteous," cautious and well-reasoned. We should carefully think through what we are doing, who we help/harm by our actions and what the ramifications could be. And then, we should act but only after much prayer and a "green light" from God. Looking toward the future, when the extreme degree of our government's corruption is revealed, our righteous anger will grow. When we see how many people's lives have been devastated or ended by corrupt bureaucrats in the government, what will we do? Our riposte ... what we'll do in response, should have nothing to do with anger. Our response must be rational and reasonable. We must drop the hammer of justice fairly and squarely.

We tend to separate church and state in ways that the Eastern Orthodox today as well as most of Western Christians historically did not. Jesus' condemnation of the money-changers and their antics was a reproachment of state corruption as well as religious heresy. IN His time, religion and politics were tightly woven together. It's not surprising that tax collecting, for example, took place in the temple. Jesus exposed the money-making, tax-collecting, corruption within the govt-temple complex. He physically destroyed things. But he did not do so as a mad man or protestor, but as someone with authority who used words to explain what He was doing and why. He spoke with and for God Himself. Apparently this deeply angered -- not offended -- the powers-that-be. They used the hook of Jesus' claim that God was His father as a means of persecuting Him, but what really angered them was the public nature of His denunciation and the fact that He challenged their social and political status. Theirs was not a religious/faith-based objection, but one based in pride. We are to be like Christ.

I don’t have an answer as to why Jesus didn’t publicly do this miracle. In future miracles, occasionally He would tell people to be quiet and not discuss the miracle, but He also had ways of dealing with the pressure and demands of desperate people – He would withdraw, quietly. Furthermore, He said it “wasn’t time” (to be “outed”?) even though He must have known that the story of this miracle would spread quickly in that small community. Since no one was healed or helped, it could have seemed like a very clever magic trick. It's a strange way to begin reveal His power as the Son of Man/God. I would have thought He'd do "something" very openly and in front of large crowds, a kick-off rally, so to speak. That "something" would have God appearing in the clouds, announcing Jesus' ministry in a loud, unmistakable voice ... with lightening and thunder. Jesus' first recorded act, then, seems almost like it wasn't big enough to start a ministry that changed the world and saved humanity. I’m not even confident that He was trying to protect someone at the wedding or even the honor of the family. There’s no hint as to His motive for turning the water into wine. Had His mum not suggest doing that miracle, would He have thought to do it? Was He just pleasing her? He could have used the miracle to point to God’s power and providence, as He did with the fish and bread miracle which fed the crowd, but it seems that this miracle was private and without divine purpose other than the obvious – filling vats with wine at a feast that had run out of it, a mere faux pas.

The issue, here, is self-control, a fruit of the Spirit. Whether self-control is concerned with wine or something else is irrelevant. Self-control is not only a gift, but something that must be pursued and striven for. If alcoholics are quick to point out that Jesus created wine, they are acting wrongly/sinfully because such an attitude reveals a lack of self-control. But, this is no different than an obese person noticing that God provides food ... or a lippy person noticing that Jesus responded tartly -- at times -- to his persecutors. It's not wine, food or words that's at issue, but self-control. Drunkenness is a lack of self-control with regard to wine. Similarly, gluttony is a lack of self-control regarding food and a quick tongue with words. A heavy-bodied, gossipy person lacks self-control as much as does an alcoholic. One of my family members used to be a shopping addict, filling her trunk with items and not removing them until after sundown out of embarrassment. That, too, was an example of a lack of self-control: it was sinful. I'm small bodied thus cannot drink without quickly getting a buzz -- for this reason, I do not drink. I do not think wine is sinful, it's just that my body seems unable to handle alcohol without getting close to that precipice of a loss of self-control. I grew up in a drinking family. It's a pleasant memory, the smell and sound of corks being removed, the lovely shapes of glasses, etc. If I could drink, I would, on occasion. Self-control in this area is not a issue to me. I do think, however, many things are so inherently evil that no Christian can partake or indulge in them -- visually addictive images of women for men, comes to mind. Even a small amount of **** is wrong, though it's ubiquity in our culture makes it difficult to avoid. Thus, there are two categories of items that are potentially associated with a lack of self-control: those that are not inherently sinful but can lead us to addiction, excess and a lack of self-control; those that are inherently sinful and should always be avoided.

I find this entire story fascinating. First, Jesus could have said upfront that the quantity of wine at a wedding is nothing compared to having the Son of Man in their presence, that they were wrongly concerned with social proprieties ... but He didn't say this, and neither did His mother. In fact, neither of them seemed to challenge the assumption that running out of wine is a big deal that requires a miracle. Second, Mary clearly expects Jesus to take care of the problem. Even her final statement overruled Jesus, strangely. "Do what He tells you ..." seems to be coercing Jesus to take control of the situation. I have two sons. If I said something like this to them, they would surely understand the subtext of my command. I'm sure Jesus did too. Thirdly, It's interesting that Jesus didn't feel it was His time to make His ministry and identity public ... but He did it anyway! THat's what's so amazing. It's as if He knew the time was wrong, but also knew that God would make good out of His premature "outing."

This must have been an amazing wedding, even by the local standards of that time -- over many days, copious food and drink, a long guest list ... Don't you wonder why Jesus was invited, particularly with his disciples? He wasn't from Cana (He was from Nazareth and originally Bethlehem) and hadn't been "home" regularly because He was a traveling teacher/prophet. The disciples were not from Cana either, as far as I know. I doubt the to-be married couple had even met Jesus' disciples, though they probably had heard of Jesus' parents who had been long-time residents in that general area. Furthermore, Jesus wasn't wealthy or well-known so there was no reputational boost to be gained from inviting Him or his dusty, proletariat disciples. Thus, I don't know what Jesus' attendance at this wedding means. His mum may have roped Him into it out of her own sense of social duty; He may have known the couple well and genuinely wanted to celebrate; He may have felt the nudge of God to go to this wedding and perform a miracle. -- Most of the time, we're not "too busy" to be with others, but simply don't feel it is important enough to do ... or we're avoiding contact. "Busyness" is an excuse not an explanation. I'm not sure what lesson I'm supposed to be applying here. It's a fascinating story: Jesus' mum was worried about the reputation/honor of the couple who had run out of wine, so much so that she got her Son to "take care of the problem;" Jesus Himself used the occasion to perform His first great miracle; the disciples must have been amazed at what happened, subsequently thinking of Jesus as a miracle-worker; a marriage ceremony was salvaged; people were entertained; social customs persisted ... Perhaps some narratives in the Bible are recorded so later readers can understand Jesus and His times a bit better, not for direct application to our contemporary lives.

Which aspects of Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 7:13-14 does Jesus apply to his title as Son of Man? When will the Son of Man complete his ministry? In the two verses of Daniel as, in part, quoted by John, Jesus only referred to the opening of heaven and angels ascending an descending ON the Son of Man. The Matthew verses were more detailed. The Son of Man will finish His ministry at some time in the future. I do not think the vision of angels ascending or descending has anything to do with the end times, but was a part of a ongoing vision. Perhaps the "heaven's open(ing)" refers to the end times? In the context of other non-John verses, it seems to refer to this, but sticking with John leads me to think that there is no reference to the end times here.

Perhaps Nathanael was less of a skeptic than a man consumed with class-conscious parochialism. I write this because when told that Jesus was from Nazareth, Nathanael “harrumphed.” He couldn't believe that a powerful political leader could be from a riff-raff town like Nazareth. Interestingly, however, Jesus regarded his misgivings as those of a “true Israelite.” Only after Nathanael was given “insider information” about how he had been surveilling Jesus from a fig tree – he was “caught,” in other words – did Nathanael understand Jesus’ knowingness about everything. When Nathanael realized Jesus’ powers of knowledge and insight, he amazingly said that Jesus was the Son of God and King of Israel. Thus, the gift of knowledge had been imparted to Nathanael.

Andrew must have been close to his brother Peter. I assume Andrew had other brothers – families were much larger, then – but chose Peter to tell about his meeting with the Messiah. Perhaps, in the past, these two brothers had talked about eschatology or the coming of the Messiah? Perhaps Peter, more than other members of his family, seemed most spiritually attuned to Andrew … a seeker? I am not familiar with “operation Andrew” but it makes a lot of sense. One reason we bring people to church rather than immediately pray with them or simply tell them about the Lord is that our faith, today, has a strong communitarian or communal aspect that attracts atomized and lonely Westerners. Today, church substitutes for community because community/civil-society/commonality is mostly missing from our lives. Rightly or wrongly, people are drawn closer to Christ because behind Him exists a community of believers which fills a need in the modern heart. This is sad, but true. If I thought I had met the Messiah, I don’t know who I’d tell. Not my family, for certain – they wouldn’t care. Friends? No … they’re all secular. I don’t feel any deep connection with anyone at church, either. I have an older woman, a godly Christian, to whom I talk about spiritual things. She lives hundreds of miles away. I suppose I’d email her. I’m not unusual is my set-apartness. My self-contained life is the norm in society. Most people imagine I’ve got great sons and lots of friends, but it’s not true … and it’s not true for most people either: we long for community yet don’t have it. Thus, it makes sense that a Christian who actually feels a part of a church community would want to bring secular friends to it. Do you remember that sitcom “Cheers?” IN it was a big man who when he entered the same bar with the same people in it on the same daily schedule would be greeted heartily. Long ago, I was watching this show with a friend who turned to me and said, “I bet that feels good.” He wanted to be greeted like that, I guess. Though on the surface my friend was quite popular, in reality he wistfully longed for a pretend community on television … In an ideal, not real, world, we’d all have Peters to excitedly talk to. We’d have communities we felt a part of. We’d know our place in our tiny universe and feel comfortable within it. In an ideal world, we’d tell people about Christ without having to lure them to faith via community. This world doesn’t exist anymore.

In time, Andrew came to be one of Jesus' disciples because of his association with John the Baptist. This cost John nothing except the loss of a good follower. Andrew was doing what John asked him to do which was to follow "the greater one." I suppose some people come to Christ because of a supernatural experience, or through other means such as books or music, but most of us come to Christ as a result of another person who brings us to church or tells us about Him. We are His recommenders. We point to HIm just as John the Baptist once did.

John the Baptist “baptized” in water as a precursor to what would come: Jesus baptized in Himself/Holy Spirit as a sign of what had come. I’m not certain the word “baptized” is necessary to understand what happens when the Spirit comes into us. Pastor Ralph gave examples of other verbs that described this event such as “breathed.” It must be difficult to well describe what happened in the life of Christ as well as in historical events such as the miracles associated with OT prophets and Paul's Damascus Road experience in the NT. How can we describe “glory” at the transfiguration, for example? Whiteness, blinding light, etc. is the best we can do, but I’m sure the event was far bigger than our words. This same problem exists with the baptism of the Spirit. Biblical authors describe how people experienced this event. All communication involves words, to some degree, and words are never accurate. Words can only suggest. They don't correspond point to point with any event. Thus, the author of this book resorted to metaphoric language .

Presumably, those who heard this phrase understood it to mean that Jesus was the living, human presentation of a Passover lamb. Still, it must have been a real stretch to imagine this, completely outside any conception they had had. Thus, I wonder how ordinary Jews understood this. He came to take away everyone’s sin. Jesus didn’t come to take away specific sins, or the confessed sins of individuals, but the sins of the world. As an aside, it does seem like the passage is saying that the “world’s” sins are removed, as if the world itself sinned. This can’t be right, but I do wonder if there was a broader conception than we normally ascribe to this verse, that somehow Jesus’ sacrificial death meant creation and social/political systems would also be redeemed. On the cross Jesus was pierced, crushed (bled?), and punished for a crime he did not commit. He was sacrificed to retain public order, according to the Roman bureaucrats who executed Him. He was punished as an apostate and God-pretender, according to the Jews who persecuted him and demanded his death.

Pastor Ralph’s questions center on preaching as the cause of pride. It’s true that speech has a large role in the Bible – the logos is reality; God speaks even life into existence. Thus, it makes sense that a good public speaker could be prideful if he lost sight of his limited role or calling. It's a heady experience to move crowds, persuade and convince. Still, our human efforts are only a distorted, sinful and miniaturized version of God’s abilities, as are all human abilities. We are both His likeness and fallen. Our speech is a part of His likeness though damaged and perverted by sin. John the Baptist had “a way with words.” He cleverly evaded the questioning of secular authorities with ripostes. He was able to persuade thousands (?) of Jews to ritually bathe to be purified in anticipation of Christ as King. He seemed not to talk about himself -- though we don’t know very much about what he said -- but about Christ. He was the “warm up” act before the main one. He built excitement and anticipation in his hearers. An opening act is always done by lesser actors. Their role is to prepare the audience for the main actor, which, in this case, was Christ. John knew he was a mere curtain raiser. He didn’t try to upstage Christ. Though a revivalist preacher can be pleasing and even mesmerizing, if his audience is not moved to genuinely accept Christ, he’s merely an entertainer. I would think that John would be humbled by the fact that his success would be judged on how well and many Jews were rightly “prepared” for the Christ event. Yes, he was a prophet: he predicted the future, the coming of Christ. In fact, the entire “show” took place within the context of prophetic texts.

This is fascinating -- why did John baptize in the first place? Why not put his hands on their heads and bless them, or anoint them with oil or some other common ritual? I don't know. Jewish women take a mikveh bath taken after menstruating or sex. These baths are located in public places, behind walls and not in homes. It's supposed to purify them before they go into the temple/synagogue as if menstrual blood and sex were sins and not a natural part of life. Perhaps John's baptism was predicated on this same sort of thinking, that the people needed to be purified/cleansed before entering the temple (presence of God in Christ.) But again, purification could take many form, not just baptism. This doesn't answer why baptism, specifically. More interesting is how the Jews themselves interpreted it. The bible is unclear about this. Baptism was obviously an emotionally charged ritual, rich with some sort of meaning and symbolism which has been partly lost to modern interpreters.

Why doesn't Jesus just answer the question and then invite the men for a walk to wherever He's staying? I have never understood why Jesus doesn't communicate directly, but couches His meanings in parables, obfuscations and puzzles. Yes, of course, it's important to be "with Jesus" but this doesn't explain why He just didn't ask these men to walk along with Him toward the home where He was staying. I can understand why He would not want to give an address as Jesus knew the men needed the experience of His presence, but that doesn't explain why getting "straight answers" is so difficult in the Christian life. How many millions of sermons, books, posts and youtube videos have been posted that teach confused Christians how to hear the voice of God? Jesus knows we're often confused as to the direction He wants to lead us, but He does not speak clearly! I don't see how direct speech would prevent us from wanting to know Him more deeply -- in fact, I would think it would make us want to seek Him more diligently. -- The meaning of "being with Jesus today" is the same as it's always been -- intimacy, spending time in prayer, constantly checking our own thoughts so they don't interfere with what we believe He's speaking, studying/writing in our devotional time ... but most of all, in every waking hour, remaining submerged or submitted to His Spirit, constantly praying/talking to Him and asking Him questions throughout the day.

John threatened the existing political order; he was a figure who upset the delicate balance of power existing in Jerusalem and its surrounding areas. Existing authorities/leaders thus felt they had to keep John within controllable bounds, as well as make certain that John supported them and did not usurp their authority. The religious authorities had instilled fear in the populace to keep them in a position of servile submission; their goal was to make certain their own precarious political position would NOT be challenged. John had a mesmerizing effect on audiences. Furthermore, his simple message and primitive clothing made him appear like a mysterious Old Testament prophet or messenger from God Himself. When John answered questions about his identity, he quoted from Isaiah -- this was a very provocative thing to do. John could have just used his own words to describe himself but chose to sacralize his social function by insinuating he was either Isaiah himself or a contemporary copy of Isaiah. John's otherworldly behavior and strange words attracted ordinary men and women starved for his message of preparing the way for a new king. There are times in history when people become collectively ripened for change,. At this time, they are vulnerable to a powerful and transforming figure either religious or autocratic. The line between church and state -- secular and religious power – was quite thin in Israel. Religious leaders at that time had the political function of validating the actions of political authority. In exchange, political leaders gave religious leaders privileged status and limited power in society. In the contemporary West, we tend to think of the government as secular and church as “sacred.” We assume that their functions in society do not overlap. This assumption is unusual. In the past, political leaders worked in a system which included a privileged/state church which supported the state. For example, India has a program called Hindutva – the establishment of Hinduism as a state-sponsored and encouraged religion; Russia has Eastern Orthodoxy as a state religion; the now-secular European countries formerly had state churches; and Catholicism is now an odd political-like enclave within Italy. My point is that for most of human history, religious and political power were conjoined. The jury is out on the wisdom of our “lively experiment” -- having a disestablished church and wholly secular state. This set-up in the west seems to be failing. A secular state enforces secularism. People may need more than this. Perhaps a country or nation needs an established religion, a set of moral boundaries supported by an empowered church?

This is a very difficult verse to understand. No one has ever seen God. The unique/only Son, himself God, (is also?) the one who is in the bosom of the Father. He (referring to the Son) has revealed himself. 1. By "unique" John may be letting the readers know that there will never be another Son, that Jesus was the only Son God would have, and no subsequent Sons should be expected. I believe this is what is meant by "only Son." 2. Yes, John distinguishes between the Son and the Father. He also equates them. The Son is BOTH God and somehow residing in God's bosom. Jesus is also outside of God, as would be a Son. I have two sons. They exist outside of my body, obviously. Perhaps the word "son" was chosen to emphasize that Jesus resided/existed outside the "body" of God? 3. Part of the problem, here, is that the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible -- the concept of trinity, then, has to be deduced from passages that only hint about it without directly describing the trinity. Thus, we're stuck trying to figure out how three can be one. This confusion is further compounded by the concept of trinity being based on the idea of Christ's nature (God and man simultaneously.) So, what does this mean for my concept of trinity? I'm not smart enough to understand either the trinity or the dual nature of Christ. My mind can only gloss over these concepts, never really taking it in. In a way, i'm left with the Holy Spirit only ... I think. The Spirit is IN me, and therefore quickens or enlightens the aspects of these concepts I need to know. Quite frankly, most of the time when I read the bible I do so without thinking of these foundational concepts.

For many secular people looking at Christianity from the outside, the idea that God became flesh is a huge intellectual stumbling block. For those of us who have accepted as truth both Him and His claim to be God, the humanity of God is still intellectually difficult to accept. A God who remained esoteric, not "touching down" to earth but emanating from beyond is easier to understand. This conception of god is aloof, far from us, inaccessible and toward whom we strive. The God of the OT is a bit like this and the gods of other faiths can be like this, too. We have a strong tendency to anthropomorphize God, to make him into a bigger, better human. This He is not. He is not a Greek god or even a Hindu god: one of many, each with their own earthly and imaginative characteristics. He's a man -- and God. Wholly both. This sets the Christian God apart from other gods. He's not just a creator (almost all gods can create). He's not just part-human as in the Greek pantheon. He's not a morally lapsed, human-like god as in Hinduism. He's not pure spirit as in Buddhism. He's wholly man and wholly God at the same time. -- The "wholly" part is significant. It's not a temporary role He plays like a acting cameo on earth for our benefit. He really did become one of us. At the same time, however, He retained His differences (at this point, my little mind is confused ... it seems un-understandable.) Suffice it to say that the story of His life, birth, death on the cross, etc. would make zero sense if He were only part-man or somehow less than human. Suffering makes Him one of us. -- The offer of salvation is His ultimate gift. It is the epitome of grace. As a Christian, I have within me His grace in the form of the Holy Spirit. This has changed me deeply. Some Christians change superficially (altered behavior precedes deeper belief) but I changed inwardly deeply and only slowly and imperceptibly did that inner change manifest itself in my behavior. I am, truly, a new "man."

Many people see receiving and believing as two acts -- the first act is intellectual and involves a willingness to consider the truth of Jesus' mission; the second act occurs when submitting to, or accepting Jesus as a fact -- but it could be the case that for many of us, if not most, these two stages are seamless and form a continuum; there is no sharp break between receiving and believing. It is quite possible for the Christian life to include sudden and transformative moments, but often it is less dramatic. Reception begins when a believer makes his first, subtle and tentative steps along a long path forward in faith. Thus, to receive Jesus is to begin walking on that path. It consists of the first baby steps taken when a soon-to-be Christian slowly (or suddenly) admits that Jesus may be real, that His mission may actually be of God and that, amazingly, Jesus may be God incarnate. Then, after softening to the point where the reality of Jesus' claims are genuinely considered and pondered, belief can begin. I do not think that belief happens suddenly for anyone. It must grow. Those unwilling to take that first step of considering the possibility of Jesus as God eliminate further progress. They must choose to be open to the message. If they smother a willingness to listen they push away the Spirit's impression on their minds. Why do they do this? Because of sin. I am convinced that people reject God because they don't want to give up a behavior or belief contrary to the gospel. It's not just a "misunderstanding" but a rejection. Those who reject the first step of earnestly considering the possibility of God will continue to live without Him. The hardening of the heart of which the Bible speaks is the natural progress they will make down the path of a God-less life. Life always progresses. It moves in a direction. We all eventually die and it is toward our deaths that we progress. Unbelievers/secularists progress on a God-less path -- we, as believers, progress on a God-ordained and chosen path. We have a relationship with God as we progress down life's path. Those who choose not to consider God are on a different path, one they hope does not intersect with ours. They don't want to be reminded of their choice. They want to think they're open to change. But they've set their future as into concrete. Can they still be saved? Yes. God does work miracles. But it will take a miracle, a road-to-Damascus sort of encounter, to get determined secularists off their God-less path.

Q2. (John 1:7-8) 1) What did it mean that John was sent to "testify" to the light? 2) In what sense are you put here with the purpose of "testifying" to the light? 3) How are you doing in this regard? 4) What happened to John the Baptist? 5) What might happen to you if you testify clearly? 6) What might happen to the people to whom you testify? -- 1) Testifying to the light is speaking about Jesus; this happened, in John's case, before Jesus began His ministry. Light seems to have two meanings. First, it's the message itself, that to which you testify. Second, it's the understanding you have of the message as it is clarified in your mind. Perhaps this is correct (not sure): Seeing = understanding, comprehending the message Light = 1) the message itself; 2) understanding/seeing the message (need light to see) Hearing = understanding the message with the idea of putting that knowledge to work 2) It is impossible to testify or evangelize if the message itself is garbled in your mind. Thus, you first must “see” or understand the message before you can make disciples. The beginning of the Christian life is spent simply figuring out what the message means and only then, once a basic understanding is yours, telling others that message -- evangelizing. 3) I'm overly nerdy so my tendency is to hover endlessly over comprehension without moving to actually evangelize. I feel the Lord pressuring me to talk more ... think less. 4) Poor John. He obeyed and was murdered. This is one of the many stories in the bible that give me pause as well as cause me to wonder what God's love and care really means. The message itself was so offensive to unbelievers that they persecuted and eventually murdered John. 5) Ultimately, God speaks through me, thankfully, so I don’t have to worry too much about perfectly articulating and understanding the message. If I pray as I evangelize and then stumble over words, He speaks both through me and into the heart of the listener. As I have matured, my message has been clarified both in my mind and in my speech, still I am not responsible for how others interpret my words. The message is His and listeners must choose to accept this message … or not. Yes, I could be persecuted and killed for evangelizing as happened to John -- murder/martyrdom is a non-trivial possibility. 6) Listeners to the message either agree with or reject it. It's a binary choice. There is no grey zone though it seems that some people come to understanding slowly and incrementally (I did). People who are not familiar with the message, even in a culturally diluted form, take a bit longer to digest it than people who have had it rattling about the back of their mind for many years. As the West further secularizes, an increasing number of people will not be able to make instant decisions to accept Christ, but will muse and ponder the message, slowly inching their way toward the light. Light has to shine through the darkness before it is perceived as light. This is why "the darkness has not understood it."

It's one thing to know the answers, to be able to repeat theology I've read or heard, but it's another thing altogether to really understand what John is saying ... which I don't. Yes, Jesus is God. Somehow, He was God and man simultaneously when on earth. He is God because He was there, in the beginning, prior to creation. We know this from other verses, not so much in the prologue of John, but somehow the logos and Christ are thought to be the same. Years ago I used to read Hegel (masochistic, I know ...) who described creation as "God othering Himself." We often think of God speaking the world into existence as if His words and creation were identical acts (which they may be). But Hegel focused on God and creation before speech, as if creation was contained in God, waiting to be released ... no, that's not right. Creation was God's "othering" -- He insided-it-out of Himself. Creation shows God today. Perhaps this general revelation is the best re-presentation we had of Him ... until Christ. Because Jesus was spoken into an earthly existence, like creation, He is the word. He is God's word. He is utterance or inside-thought of God becoming manifest. One of the things about the Bible that amazes me is how centred it is on speech and speaking. Logos is both a noun and verb ... de facto. God speaks. God speaks actual words. Creation starts with words. Creation is those words. Christ was His second creation, even though He already existed because He had to exist here, not just "there", in an inaccessible place. So God re-created Himself, or, He created Himself, or, He othered Himself as Christ. This re-creation includes the idea of Christ's purpose. God didn't do this on a whim. It was a purpose-driven action. Thus, Christ's creation had meaning -- logos -- and that meaning included purpose. I'm very sorry, but I can't understand more.

Joshua gave the Israelites an all-or-nothing proposition – either do X or do Y because there’s no choice in-between. He eliminated the choices of those who were hiding gods as well as sacrificing to God; he also eliminated the choice of those who were currying favor with the locals and their gods at the same time they were currying favor with the God of Israel. There was no neutral position, Joshua was saying … no “Switzerland” for believers. They had to choose one side or the other and couldn’t pretend to plant their faith-flag in neutral or unaffiliated ground. God would not tolerate the presence of competition, said Joshua, and the unwillingness to make an definitive and defining choice has had the unintended effect of abandoning the God of their fathers. Choosing to not make a choice was making a choice before and against Him. Every day we make similar binary choices to follow or not follow His leading. Most of the choices we make are not between sin and not-sin, though they can be, but between obedience and hesitation, between taking an uncomfortable path or walking a narrower one. As the Christian life proceeds (and sanctification takes its toll) our choices become more subtle. Here Joshua reminds us that our lives are full of binary choices which add, slowly, into a life well-lived before Him … if we make mostly correct choices. There are times, however, when our choices are fuzzy, when it’s not clear how God is leading or why. That’s where I am now. What I’m doing is the same thing I was doing – I’m not moving until I’m certain of where He’s leading. It’s not a question of lacking faith. I do not feel He wants me to jump forward. Something is in the offing. But when doors are shut, His message is clear – WAIT. He must be planning changes in my near future about which I know nothing. There are also times when He lets us make our own choices, when God hands us the reins and lets us trail-blaze. But, if our tendency is to trail-blaze God will probably bridle us with binary choices and not set us free to choose in smorgasbord-like circumstances. -- Thank you, Pastor Ralph, for another fantastic study. Please keep them coming!

Many years ago I visited a Christian nursing home somewhere in New Jersey -- across the entrance portico was written in huge letters, “BE YE SEPARATE.” This organization hired only Christians as well as took, as patients, only Christians. This stuck in my mind because it seemed the most extreme example of separation I had known. From a distance, I had watched the Amish in Pennsylvania and Orthodox Jews in Crown Park, Brooklyn, but for some reason, the nursing home seemed more self-consciously exclusionary than that of other “cultural religionists.” I have thought much about this since. I'm not sure I can well describe what follows because my thoughts are muddled and confused. To sum: I have found being a Christian extremely isolating. Fellowship has been an abstract idea not a lived reality. In spite of shared faith, I find little to talk about with other Christians. What separates us is our pasts, class, what we read, the sorts of interests we have and places/people we’ve seen or known, etc. Our frame of reference is simply different -- we refer to different things as analogies or examples. Even my speech, I’ve learned, sets me apart. So, I've pulled away, not only from secular society, but from Christian fellowship. If one’s secular past overlaps with one’s new faith identity, then becoming a Christian means switching to a new clique much like the old one except it is “religious." For all of us, a sense of belonging is cultural, not faith-driven. We can worship with people around the world without binding to them in any substantial manner. We share faith, but nothing else. We love them, but that love doesn't touch the ground because our life circles don't overlap. My relationship as a Christian with both Christians and seculars is siloed. I love talking to the guy that works in the garden center, but we talk only about plants. I talk to the librarian about books. To the washing machine repair guy about young babies and fixing things. I love talking to Christians, too, but our conversations are limited to abstract issues of faith. Perhaps, to a degree, this is how all of us associate with others. We silo our affections. We have many tiny, sometimes momentary, Christian relationships than never deepen. What's different for some of us, however, is that becoming a Christian has meant that the tiny relationships which never deepen are all we'll ever have. Deep relationships with secular people outside the faith are verboten to the Christian; unfortunately, these are the only people with whom I could potentially share thoughts and ideas. My faith is a huge barrier to THEM -- they hate(!) my faith: similarly, their secularism is a huge barrier to me -- I have separated. This includes my entire family and all past friends. The questions posed by Pastor Ralph invert reality as I've lived it. There is no "strategic effect of having no friendship with non-Christians," but rather the opposite, the sad probability that I will never have deep relationships with Christians! I'm far less worried about becoming "like" my secular friends than I am that this season of extreme isolation will never end, that I'll never meet a subset of Christians with whom I have enough in common to share a cup of tea and converse easily. True: Jesus associated with secular people, but his association was limited to people within a very cohesive culture to which he belonged. He was comfortable at the wine-less wedding, for example. That was "his crowd." Today's Christians who are in the middle of the crowd cannot see how they fit within a cohesive culture that overlaps substantially with secular culture. In other words, they feel comfortable among Christians because their secular life, if they had converted, wasn't very different. They watch the same sports on the tele as do their secular friends. They read the same books. Vote for the same candidates, or at least understand those who vote differently. Their kids go to the same schools. They shop in the same places. Etc. Etc. They fit, that is, in the secular milieu in which their Christian culture is a subset much as Jesus fit in his secular milieu. The gap between and from secular society is thus bridgeable and understandable. Separation isn't a big deal because the church is more or less contiguous with secular, middle-middle class society. The church mimes secular society more than it sets itself apart. To me, the church looks just like any middle-middle class group except with Christian leanings, lingo and a few distinctly Christian behaviors. If the church was MORE set apart or separated from secular society, it would be a more congenial/understandable place for those of us who were not raised within the Western middle class -- we’d all be strangers in a strange land. Because the church is more or less culturally contiguous with secular, middle class society, it’s very difficult for some of us to find points of commonality. I feel I've separated ... to be alone. I've read that God puts some people He's going to use through the crucible of stillness and isolation, both from others and from Himself. Perhaps that's all this is. In my dreams, I meet people from my background who are now Christian. We enjoy each other's company, marry each other, send our little ones to the same schools, quote from the same sources, hum the same musical phrases, interject familiar references ... with ease and a lack of self-consciousness. But this is just a dream. Not reality. It's a Christian dream. -- I came back to erase this, but decided to let it stand. If it comes off as a primal whine, so be it. It's also an honest statement from someone who is committed but separated. I'm grateful for anonymity.