It is in brokenness that we recognize Jesus

In Luke's Gospel we read the story of two disciples who meet Jesus on the road to Emmaus. (Lk. 24:13-35). It is the day of resurrection. The two must have been crushed by the events of the past few days. The story records that as the two were discussing these things Jesus opened their eyes to the reality of the whole Passion Week event. Everything that had happened was foretold in scripture. Every thing that had happened was necessary to inaugurate the coming kingdom.

For them this had been an educational experience. I hope someday you will acquire an interest to learn the kinds of things that Jesus told to these disciples. I have been studying the Bible carefully for years and one of the things I find to be the most astonishing is how the whole thing fits together. The Bible seems so disconnected and sometimes distant, because it was written over such a long period of time by so many different authors in so many different styles - poetry, and narrative, and prophecy, and what we call wisdom literature, and so much more - that it seems there could hardly be anything to hold it all together. But the more you look at it the more you see that the entire Bible from the first page to the last is about the gospel of Jesus Christ. About how God so loved the world that he sent his only son to bear our burdens, to bear our punishment, so that we could have the fullness of life with him. In my estimation there is absolutely nothing more astonishing than this.

And yet even for all that Jesus told, they still did not recognize him. It was, in the end, no matter how inspirational, just knowledge. It wasn't until later, at dinner, when Jesus blessed and broke the bread, that they suddenly recognized Jesus. What changed? What made these two disciples go from despair to knowing that the kingdom was upon them? What made them transition from experiencing Jesus as an inspired teacher to recognizing Jesus as the Risen Lord?

In some ways it is impossible for us to fully answer this question. We just know that when Jesus accepted their invitation to hospitality, and he broke the bread, the disciples suddenly recognized him.

What do you think it was about the breaking of the bread that opened their eyes? I'll tell you what I think it was. Spiritual writer Henri Nouwen writes about the breaking of the bread as a New Testament pattern for the life of Jesus. When Jesus fed the five thousand, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to the people. When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples. Jesus identifies himself as the bread of life (Jn. 6:35). The Father chose him, blessed him, broke him on the cross, and gave him to the world. Likewise we, his disciples, are taken out of the world, blessed, broken, and given to the world, to build his kingdom of love.

It is in that brokenness that we recognize Jesus. It is in that brokenness that God identifies with his creatures. It is in that brokenness that Jesus bore the penalty for our sins. And it is in our own brokenness our that our eyes are opened to the depth of our sin and the magnitude of our salvation.

This story ought to give us a sense of humility when it comes to our understanding of the scriptures. I think it is instructive that the disciples and indeed probably almost everyone in the Jewish world at the time Jesus was on earth knew the scriptures about the Messiah. It was very common for Jews, then and now, to be very familiar with scripture. Yet, even though God had made it very plain what had to happened for the Messiah to inaugurate his kingdom, when it happened, everyone missed it. How can we think that we know any better than they did? Can we think that at all?

Of course I am not suggesting that we should abandon scripture because we don't rightly understand it. On the contrary I am saying that we should prayerfully approach the scripture with the attitude that what God is saying in scripture may not be what we want to hear. A proper understanding of scripture might not prop up our culturally conditioned beliefs. A proper understanding of scripture might not fulfill our worldly desires. It might make our lives more difficult, not less. It might make undeniable the true cost of our discipleship.

The other thing that we can take from this story is that no amount of knowledge, even correct knowledge, can substitute for a personal encounter with Jesus. We can only experience that encounter in brokenness. God's grace and our need come together at the cross. We become one with Jesus in his brokenness and our brokenness. And when Jesus rises to life, we rise with him, to live forever.

Alive Together With Christ

2 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Why I Can’t Support Same Sex Marriage in the Church

I know this is a cultural land mine but it is time to speak. I am much dismayed by a number of Christian so-called leaders who are jumping on the bandwagon of supporting same-sex marriage. There is no way that a Christian can be true to scripture and at the same time support so-called “gay” marriage in the Church.

I am not a bigoted neanderthal homophobe. I do not hate anyone because of their sexual orientation. I feel it is my calling not only as a Pastor but as a disciple of Christ to view everyone, especially those who differ with me, as Christ sees them. I must be willing to offer to them, even the ones who hate me, my life, as Jesus did on the cross. And for the same reason: love.

But before I am a servant of man I am a disciple of Christ. As a Protestant Christian I believe that God reveals himself to us through scripture. Proper understanding of scripture is not easy but once the clear message of scripture is understood I am bound by it. In this case, the clear message of scripture is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That may not be a popular observation, but it is scripturally undeniable.

Now let me qualify by saying that I am not writing about whether two people who are not Christians ought to be able to live together in any kind of relationship they choose. As a Christian leader I have no right nor do I have any intention to address the behavior of non-Christians. If the secular government decides to provide recognition, support, and protection to same sex relationships that is none of my concern. If people want to call that "marriage," fine. What I am specifically referring to is what can be sanctioned within the teachings of Christian scripture. Therefore, obviously, secular government and non-Christians have no concern for what I am writing about.

And I think it is only fair to mention that there are many people living in church-sanctioned living arrangements (marriages) that are no more holy than any relationship between two people of the same sex might be. Nor is the sin of homosexual relations a worse sin than any other sin. No one in the church can claim to be more righteous than anyone else – in or out of the church. Scripture is very clear that all humans, each and every one, are steeped in sin and can never be righteous in God’s eyes. The gospel, the “great good news,” is that what humans cannot do, Jesus did do. There is no sin that anyone can commit that can keep them from the love of Christ, because Jesus already paid the price for all sin.

And as Christians we cannot refuse fellowship with anyone who is called to the Spirit-filled life. Pastor Tim Keller of Redeemer Church in New York City observed in his book The Reason for God that if someone who calls him or herself a homosexual feels drawn to the church, the first question they ought to ask themselves is not what is the church’s stance on homosexuality but do they believe that Jesus died for their sins? If they don’t, the question about doctrine is moot. If they do, then surrendering to the Spirit will begin the process of leaving behind worldly things and becoming more Christ-like. I don’t mean to suggest that the Spirit will take “gay” people and turn them into “straight” people. I’m pretty sure no one who begins to walk the road of the Christian faith knows exactly what they will eventually have to give up in order to be a disciple, but we know in the end they will look like Christ. What is certain is that we are all called to give up everything, because this road leads through the cross.

If you are not yet a follower of Jesus, then I wish you well and I pray that he will manifest himself to you as only he can and draw you back into relationship with the Father. I mean that in all sincerity. The rest of what I have to write is for Christians.

It is common among Christians to point to Old Testament law as a basis for condemnation of homosexuality. This is wrong in at least two ways. The first way is that the Bible does not speak of “homosexuality” in the way our culture understands the term. “Homosexuality” in today’s understanding presupposes a natural, inherent sense of identity that falls somewhere on a scale between “gay” and “straight.” I am not qualified to enter the argument about whether sexual orientation is inherent (natural, i.e. “God made me this way”) or not. But I can state with certainty that gender identity is a twentieth century concept.

When the Bible speaks about homosexual acts, it means just that: homosexual acts. When the bible condemns homosexual acts as sins, it never condemns the identity of the sinner, just the sin. This may seem unimportant until you recognize that the Bible condemns any number of other acts as sinful as well. The Bible condemns sexual relations between a man and a woman outside of marriage as sinful. The Bible is not by so doing condemning heterosexuals.

A second way that trying to prove the Bible condemns homosexuality by using Old Testament law is wrong is that Jesus fulfilled the law. Most of the people talking about what the Bible says about this or that don’t really know what the Bible says about anything because they’ve missed the big story to focus on isolated phrases they can string together to support their own biases. But scripture is a unified whole that has a main subject (Jesus) and a big picture.

The big picture is that humanity fell into sin, God gave the law to the Israelites to offer them a way to atone for their sin and draw the rest of the world into salvation, the Israelites failed either to keep the law or draw anyone into salvation, and God sent Jesus to do what humans could not do. When Jesus died on the cross, he atoned for all of the sins of all people throughout all time, thus fulfilling the law. The Old Testament law is no longer in force because there is nothing left to atone for.

If you know anything about the Bible you know that the Old Testament law says, “Thou shalt…” or “Thou shalt not…” and then gives consequences for failure to comply. For example, the consequence of a child disobeying their parents is death by stoning (Deut. 21:18-21). But in the New Testament, Jesus lays out a standard of behavior and says anyone who does not live up to this standard will not enter the kingdom of God. There is no punishment specified. Jesus doesn’t say, “If someone doesn’t love their neighbor, take them out back and throw rocks at them.” There is no measure of atonement specified because all sins have already been atoned for. But if someone doesn’t love their neighbor, they cannot be thought of as in the kingdom of God, because the kingdom of God is characterized by love. So the New Testament understanding of sin is that the sin itself is the punishment, and Jesus offers a way out of sin. He offers us his life.

So then, having written all of this, on what basis am I saying that I can’t support same sex marriage in the Church? The answer could not be simpler: Jesus himself defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman (Mt. 19:4-6). There is no equivocation. There is no exception clause. Jesus’s saying here is not contradicted anywhere else in the Bible. It does not have anything to do with my opinion or your opinion or public opinion. It is the clear teaching of scripture. I may or may not like it but my preferences are inconsequential. The clear teaching of scripture is that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

And here is at least a part of the reason. The marriage relationship is a mirror of the Trinitarian love relationship of the Godhead. We have to conclude that the activity of the marriage relationship will mirror God's activity, and God's first activity is creation. So the primary activity of the marriage relationship is creative self-sacrificing love. And that is, quite obviously, despite what our self-worshipping society insists, the purpose of sex. Marriage is intended to mirror the self-sacrificing love of the Trinity to the point that the marriage relationship, through sexual union, continues God's act of creation. This cannot happen in a same-sex relationship, no matter how much the partners love each other.

If a same sex couple came to my church and asked if they could be members of the congregation I would heartily welcome them. I would welcome them in the same way as a heterosexual couple living outside of wedlock. If they asked me what I thought about their living arrangements I would point out what scripture says about sexual relations outside of marriage.

But if two men or two women asked me if I would marry them, on the basis of what I just wrote above, I would tell them no. If three men and two women, or any other combination of men and women other than one man and one woman asked me to marry them, I would say no, for the same reason. I am sure they could find a “church” that would, but I could not in good conscience pretend that God has consecrated such a union. God himself might, but he has not indicated so anywhere in scripture, so I cannot

Any counsel on this subject I would give must be placed within the framework of the general sinfulness of fallen humanity and the concept of sanctification, or the working of the Holy Spirit in a converted person to make them more and more like Christ. It is between God and each person, in fellowship with the Spirit and the community of believers, to work out their salvation. (Phil. 2:12) It is for me only to point out the light as I have been given the ability to see it, and to love and pray for all people. And it is for us to love as Christ commands us to love, as Christ himself loved. I am sure that the love of God for you is every bit as deep as it is for me, or for any other sinner.

This is what characterizes followers of Christ.

A New Commandment

31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once. 33 Little children,yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, and just as I said to the Jews, so now I also say to you, ‘Where I am going you cannot come.’ 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:31-35, ESV)

Today is Maundy Thursday, traditionally the day of the Last Supper. It’s called “Maundy” because the word maundy means commandment, signifying when Jesus gave us the “new” commandment to love one another as he loves us. This is not pink hearts and valentines folks. This is the total giving of ourselves for the other, even those who despise us. This is what characterizes followers of Christ.

Hollywood Religion (Mk. 11:12-25)

This week’s sermon is located here:

RPC Sermon Archive

The Return of the King

With Easter approaching I’ve been thinking about the so-called “Triumphal Entry” recorded in Mark 11:1-11. Do you remember the scene from the movie The Return of the King where at the climax of the movie the one ring of power was finally destroyed and the Dark Tower came crashing down? If you will recall, the camera in this scene alternated between showing the struggle happening inside Mt. Doom between Frodo, Gollum, and Sam, and the scene at the Black Gate of Mordor where there was a battle between the forces of light and darkness.

You may recall that the battle ended with the destruction of the ring, because Sauron the Dark Lord lost all of his power and so his evil minions ran away. The significant thing about this scene in relation to the episode in Mark’s gospel is that the good guys, the forces of light, were hopelessly outnumbered. If you are familiar with the story the whole point of bringing the army to Mordor was to distract the Dark Lord so that Frodo could get to Mt. Doom and destroy the ring. There was never any thought that the army would be successful in assailing the defenses of Mordor and defeating the Dark Lord. It was, essentially, a suicide mission.

You may wonder what this has to do with Jesus entering Jerusalem because in our imagination we see the entry as triumphant. But if we examine the scripture closely we will see that much of what we think we know about this incident never happened.

You have probably heard before that the crowd who cheered Jesus on his arrival in Jerusalem was the same fickle crowd that only a few days later would be shouting for his crucifixion. That is probably not true. The crowd that cheered Jesus probably consisted of his disciples and fellow travelers from Galilee. The crowd that cried for his execution was the Jerusalem crowd, most of whom probably didn't know anything about his so-called triumphal entry. There were two crowds.

We can see that this is true when we look at Matthew's account: "When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, 'Who is this?' The crowds [those with Jesus] answered, 'This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.'" (Mt. 21:10-11 NIV). At the risk of seeming irreverent, this would be like a bunch of hillbillies showing up in downtown Los Angeles and somebody asking "Who is this?" and the hillbillies answering, "This is Joe, the preacher from Bumblescum, Alabama."

At this point, for most in the city, Jesus was a non-entitty. I don't think even the religious leaders knew what was coming upon them. The gospels record that some of the Pharisees tried to rebuke Jesus, but Jesus has been in conflict with the Pharisees all along. The group that is going to call for his death, the Sanhedrin, the ruling religious council, probably doesn't even know he's there yet. They will find that out in the next episode, when Jesus acts aggressively to clear the temple courts.

Why is this significant? Why is it important to see this episode in this light? Let's go back to the example I used at the beginning, where we saw the army of the West, led by Gandalf and Aragorn approaching the great and terrible citadel of the Dark Lord. The army of the west is small and pitiful in comparison with the vast forces arrayed against them. The scene of the ensuing battle shows that they were hopelessly outnumbered. No one in their right minds would believe that this army could prevail

And of course that was for dramatic effect in the movie, to make their ultimate victory even more triumphant. And we know that the army didn't prevail because of military power. But because of the sacrifice of Frodo and Sam in going to Mt. Doom and destroying the Ring. When I was in High School English I was never very good at figuring out literary metaphors and all that stuff but I don't know how you can miss this.

In the same way in this scripture Jesus and his band of misfits from the boondocks have come to challenge the status quo. They are coming to challenge the power of the religious establishment, which does not represent God's will on earth but is based on false hopes and lies. And they are challenging the might of the Roman Empire and its reliance on earthly power to maintain control over the lives and the wealth of the conquered populations. Jesus is throwing down the gauntlet and challenging the power of Satan himself. He is serving notice to Satan that his final defeat is at hand

At this point in the story, from the point of view of those who are watching, none of this can seem to be true. And if they recognize that Jesus is making this challenge, which Jesus makes certain by riding into the city on a donkey as prophesied in Zechariah (Zech. 9:9), most people must just think of him and his followers as nut jobs.

It's even more ridiculous than the scene in the movie. The crowds that accompany Jesus into Jerusalem aren't even an army. They are the poor, the outcast, the oppressed, the sinners. People from the bottom rungs of society's ladder. The powerless people. The unwashed. The street people. And that is what makes Jesus' victory so much more triumphant.

Jesus did not come to conquer the world with military might and worldly power. Jesus came to conquer the world with love. And he succeeded beyond what even his most ardent followers could have hoped. "Take heart!" He tells them, and us, "I have overcome the world." (John 16:33 NIV).

What Mark describes in these verses is not a triumphal entry but an assault. It is not an entry but an invasion. And it is an invasion of the most unlikely cast of characters, in which the most powerful structures mankind can devise crumble in the face of Jesus' self-sacrificing love.

There were two crowds in Jerusalem on the day Jesus entered. One was the crowd that was firmly entrenched in the power, wealth, and prestige of worldly institutions, and the other was a ragtag band of followers of a strange preacher from the boondocks. One represented the best of what the world had to offer in terms of wealth and power learning and religion and morality, and the other consisted of a bunch of shady characters with suspect pasts. One relied on the power of the world and the esteem of men; the other cast its hopes on the grace of God's Holy One. One crowd - the first one - was utterly vanquished. The other gained an everlasting crown in heaven.

There are two crowds today, too. Which crowd are you in? Do you want to be seen as respectable by the world? Do you want to gain wealth and prestige? Or do you want to reject and be rejected by the world, as our savior did and was, and become agents of God's justice, righteousness, and love?

Let us be pleased to identify ourselves with the world's outcasts, so that when at the end of our labors we meet our risen Lord, we can hear him say, "Well done, good and faithful servant." (Mt. 25:21 ESV).

You follow me!

When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” (Jn. 21:21-22 NIV).

Peter, newly restored, turns his attention to the beloved disciple, and asks Jesus what is to be his fate. Jesus responds by saying, essentially, "mind your own business." Jesus' great conflict with human agents in his incarnation had been the controversy with the Pharisees. Jesus was uncompromisingly negative toward their wrong understanding of the Law, their reliance on external conformity, their arrogance, and their hypocrisy. But he never rebuked them for their piety. Jesus didn't hate the Pharisees, he hated what they had done mis-representing the heart of God. The heart that had demanded justice, righteousness, and love throughout recorded history. He hated that the attention of the religious leaders was on the performance of others and not on their own need, their own obligation, their own call to discipleship.

In this episode we see Peter, who had been gently and lovingly restored to fellowship with Jesus, now turn his attention to others. "What about this man?" Peter's question, we can assume, was pharasaic. It was not out of concern for his own soul, and neither out of concern for the beloved disciple's, but in comparison. "Where do I stand in comparison to him?" How does Jesus answer? "You follow me!"

It is so easy to be a Pharisee. It is so much harder to follow Jesus. But this story demonstrates that we are to approach our brothers and sisters with humility. We are not to compromise our own calling, but we are to be generous and humble in allowing Jesus to call our fellows. We are to allow God to be God, and acknowledge that we are not. We don't know their relationship with the divine, but we know that we are called to love them.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.
9  For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Is. 55:8-9 NIV).

The Return of the King (Mk. 11:1-11)

This week’s sermon is located here:

RPC Sermon Archive

Participating in the Inner Life of God

If we agree that the marriage relationship is a mirror of the Trinitarian love relationship of the Godhead then we have to conclude that the activity of the marriage relationship will mirror God's activity, and God's first activity is creation. So the primary activity of the marriage relationship is creative self-sacrificing love. And that is, quite obviously, despite what our self-worshipping society insists, the purpose of sex. We have a very complete picture, biblically supported, for what marriage ought to be. Marriage was intended to mirror the self-sacrificing love of the Trinity to the point that the marriage relationship, through sexual union, continues God's act of creation. When we realize this, we ought to think of marriage and sex as unfathomable gifts. What an amazing privilege to be able to participate so intimately in the inner life of God!