News

(2 Pet 2 - Rev 22) Even though there is a great variety in our final week of reading, 3 of these final books - 2 & 3 John, Jude - are among the shortest writings in all the NT, so it's really hard not to focus our attention on Revelation. I find that most people tend toward one of two extremes when it comes to this polarizing book: either they become obsessed with it and give it attention that is out of proportion to the rest of the Bible, or they decide it's way too weird or obscure or whatever and ignore it entirely. Personally, I want to try to avoid both of these. It's true that much of Revelation is weird and obscure, although I think it becomes slightly less so if we have a good handle on the OT. For me, the solution to the problem is not to get bogged down in all the details. I am a firm believer that the Lord did not give us Revelation for the purpose of trying to read the signs and predict His return. After all, He taught us that no one knows the day or the hour (Matt 24:36) to which the apostles added that when the end does come, it will be as a thief in the night (1 Thess 5:2, 2 Pet 3:10). But, what we can do as we read Revelation is revel in the power, glory and majesty of Jesus Christ. The story of His first coming is filled with humility, misunderstanding, pain, torture, and death. But His second coming will be the exact opposite: undeniable, decisive, triumphant, and well-deserved. As we complete our read through the entire Bible on this note, let us give Him praise and worship, resounding along with John, "Maranatha! Even so, come Lord Jesus!"

(1 Tim 1 - 1 Pet 5) This collection is even more eclectic than last week's because there are several different authors represented. We started off with Paul's pastoral letters, who may or may not have also written Hebrews (personally, I doubt it), then we finished with James and Peter. The pastoral letters are particularly significant to me for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean that they are irrelevant to non-pastors. At a minimum, every Christian should be aware of the qualifications and expectations of a pastor so that they know what to look for. But even beyond that, there is much in these letters about the expectations upon the whole church. One of the most important passages, in my estimation, is 2 Tim 2:2, "and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also." You would be hard-pressed to find a clearer pattern for how we are to fulfill the great commission. It's not stadium-sized evangelistic events or tent-meeting revivals, but one-on-one discipleship that is key. Certainly the pastors are part of the process (Paul & Timothy), but it involves the whole church (faithful men & others). One of the greatest challenges facing the church today is the lack of men entering the pastorate. I am convinced that one of the main reasons for this is that we haven't been doing 2 Tim 2:2 very well. We've been leaving it up to Bible colleges and seminaries. Those are important, but not everyone can afford to invest 4-8 years of their life preparing for ministry this way. Nor does it need to be. Jesus was able to train leaders to build His church who never went to seminary. He did it by modeling 2 Tim 2:2 - life lived in service together. So, what is FBC Stryker doing to prepare the faithful men & others who will be our next generation's pastors, deacons, and ministry leaders? It's going to take all of us doing our part.

(Eph 1 - 2 Thess 3) Finishing up the letters of Paul addressed to churches, one of the things I see that all of them have in common is a direct relationship between theology and practice. This is perhaps most apparent in the letter to the Romans, sometimes referred to as "The Gospel according to Paul." The first 11 chapters contain some of the deepest systematic theology in all of the new testament. But then, from 12:1 through the end he deals primarily with practical application, i.e. what they are to do in light of the truths he has just expounded. Although it may not be quite as clearly delineated in his other letters, it can still be seen. One of the most important markers that demonstrates this is his frequent use of the word "therefore" throughout every letter. Usually, this is Paul's way of saying, "now that I have explained this to you, this is how it should be reflected in your daily life." Christians today often err in this regard in one of two extremes: either by minimizing the importance if theology as if its only of interest to academics, or by treating it merely as something to be studied, information to be known, and it having little or no impact upon how we live our lives. The former is probably the more common error in American Evangelicalism today, whereas the latter is the tendency of those in Fundamentalist circles. While maintaining the proper balance between these two can be tricky, I am convinced it is essential for our walk of faith.

(1 Cor 13 - Gal 6) This week we finished off 1 Corinthians, then added 2 more Pauline letters: 2 Corinthians and Galatians. The total number will only continue to increase as the length of each letter gets smaller, making it challenging to find one common theme to journal about. We'll see how it goes. But, this week we lucked ut, because there is a common thread that runs through all three of these letters: warnings against false teachings from within. We see this in the closing chapters of 1 Cor in chapter 15 referencing those who were proclaiming that there is no resurrection from the dead. It's all over 2 Cor, but especially in reference to a group Paul twice mockingly refers to as "super-apostles" (11:5, 12:11). And in Galatians, of course, it came from the group called the "circumcision party" (2:12), i.e. Jewish Christians who were insisting the Gentile Christians must be circumcised. What piques my attention the most about all of these references is that obstacles to gospel ministry do not always come from without. In fact, we could argue by the frequency Paul had to deal with these issues in all his letters that it may come more often from within. Personally, I believe these issues are not always from wolves in sheep's clothing, i.e., false believers in our midst whose agenda is to damage or destroy. Often, it can be from those who, with the best of intentions, think that what they are doing is right, but are misguided. Although we do not struggle with the same issues that caused churches to stumble in Paul's day, ours are no less destructive. This is why it is important for us to be sure that the issues we're wrangling over have a biblical basis. If not, it's more likely to be based on our own preferences or a non-essential that we have elevated beyond its importance. And, even here we need to proceed with caution. As we learned back in Rom 14, even matters of Biblical convictions can have room for differences of opinion. Because of this, it is well we began the week with the admonition of 1 Cor 13 to make sure we do all things in a spirit of love.

(Rom 1 - 1 Cor 12) This week we read two of Paul's letters: Romans and First Corinthians. Both were authored by the same person and addressed to churches in Gentile territories; and yet, each is unique. There are some surface differences: for example, Paul had never been to Rome, but he had helped to plant the church in Corinth. But I do not think these are sufficient to account for the many differences. Much of the letter to Romans is concerned with the ins and outs of salvation, especially as it relates to Jews and Gentiles. We know that there was a sizable Jewish population in Rome and that some of them converted to Christianity. Perhaps this is a reflection of some dispute that was going on between members of the church that came from these two different backgrounds? In contrast, the first letter to the Corinthians deals with a number of issues, but not that one. Several of the early chapter in particular deal with relational issues between the sexes: immorality, marriage, even incest. It also seems to me that Paul deals with these issues with a much heavier hand than he does in Romans. Maybe that's because as their "spiritual father" (4:15) he felt he had more right to chastise them than those he didn't know as well? In any case, this illustrates to me that no two churches are exactly alike. Churches are an amalgamation of its members and since those members are all unique, it only stands to reason that the resulting mixture will be unique. Even when they are in the same town, each church will have its own unique strengths and weaknesses, passions and preferences. I believe God designed it this way on purpose. As Paul reminds us in 1 Cor 12, a church is made up of many members (v. 12), each of who brings something to the table (vv. 7-10), but all of whom have been placed there by God (v. 18). Rather than judging or looking down on another church because they don't do things the same way we do, we should rejoice in their differences - provided they are still committed to the gospel - because they have been designed by God to reach different people who will not respond as well to us. Instead, we should focus on doing what we must to reach those whom we have been best designed to reach.

(Acts 12-28) Acts tells the story of the beginnings of the church from the ascension of Christ (approx. AD 30?) until Paul's imprisonment in Rome (approx. AD 60?). Even over that relatively brief period of time, there is a tremendous amount of change. To my mind, the biggest of those changes is the shift from the Jews as the primary focus in the early chapters to the Gentiles in the later chapters. This shift is perhaps most evident with the dispute over circumcision leading to the Jerusalem Council in Ch. 15. In spite of this, the Jews are never completely set aside. This is clearly demonstrated through Paul's custom of always starting out by going to a synagogue whenever he started out in a new town (cf. 13:14, 14:1, 17:1, 18:4, 19, & 19:8). It is also suggested in Ch. 21 through Paul's interaction with the leaders of the church in Jerusalem (many of whom were part of the Jerusalem Council), though this last does raise some interesting questions. The concern, as expressed by "James and the elders" (21:18) is that Paul's work among the Gentiles has been misunderstood by the Jews who have believed, but are still zealous for the law (v. 20). To remedy the situation, they suggest that Paul should participate in a purification rite along with 4 other men, ostensibly to demonstrate that he still has respect for the law. In following their suggestion, some Jews from Asia cause an uproar in the temple which results in Paul's arrest at the hands of the Romans. Although the Lord ultimately uses these events to bring Paul to Rome, which had been His determined plan (23:11), it seems to me that the motives behind them were erroneous. This fact alone should caution us against using anything in Acts as prescriptive instead of descriptive (i.e., a command for us to follow as opposed to a mere record of what happened). One thing I think that we can reasonably apply to our own lives is this: even when we mess up, it will not prevent God's will from being accomplished. Because of this, we can feel free to try our best and not be so concerned about success or failure. This doesn't mean we should throw caution to the wind and feel free to be stupid, either; just not to be paralyzed by the idea that we might be wrong. God will work it out around us if need be.

(John 15 - Acts 11) Having reached the end of the fourth and final gospel, we now move into the story of the first days of the church: the book of Acts. It's important to remember that we're reading an historical narrative. While the events are instructive and even applicable to some degree, the fact that they are recorded in the Bible does not mean that they are normative for our day. I'm talking, of course, about things like being struck dead for lying about a donation to the church, signs & wonders, and speaking in tongues, etc. Well then, you might ask, why are they there? Whenever God makes a significant change to the way He's doing things, it is accompanied by miraculous works as an authenticating sign. Although God can and does do miracles whenever it suits Him, they are not typical. This is true even going back to the Old Testament. The three most concentrated times of sign activity were through 1) Moses & Aaron, 2) Elijah & Elisha, and 3) Jesus & the Apostles. In each case, God was changing how He related to mankind. With Moses, He instituted the law. With Elijah, He shifted from speaking primarily through the priesthood to the prophets. And with Jesus, obviously, the church. God no longer needs these signs because He has already authenticated His Apostles and then, through them, told us what we need in their writings, the New Testament. Sometimes, particularly when we're faced with a difficult trial or decision we might cry out, "Lord, give me a sign!" But the reality is, that's not how signs work and He has already given us everything that we need to figure these things out through His word. That is the first place to look when we have a need.

(John 1-14) John is the most unique of the four gospels, not considered one of the "synoptics" (a fancy word which simply means "taking the same view." It is generally agreed that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all depend upon each other to some degree and were probably all written closely in time, in the 60s. Most modern scholars believe that Mark was written first and that Matthew & Luke are essentially expanded revisions, one of which also relies on the other. John on the other hand was probably written as much as 30 years later and purposely avoids much of what is contained in the other three, with a few notable exceptions. Even when he does overlap, he tells the story his own way without the parallels we see in the synoptics. It's as if John is filling in the gaps, including extra details and telling us the "rest of the story" so to speak. This is seen most clearly in the first half of the book, before we get to the passage narrative where the parallels are harder to avoid. Even though there is a wealth of distinctive material to talk about, the one that has always stood out to me is the account of raising Lazarus from the dead in chapter 11. In this story, when Jesus receives news that His friend is sick, He purposely waits - not just for him to die, but long enough that he will be entombed for four days, past the time any jew would believe that he could be revived. Of course, we know how the story plays out. This reminds me that in the Lord's perfect timing, sometimes we will have to go through difficult trials, including death, so that He can receive the maximum glory. And as nice as it would be to conclude that each one of these will end in a miraculous resuscitation, we know this is not the case; this is a sign that point to our ultimate source of hope - our resurrection to eternal life. With this as our focus, we can endure any trial.

(Luke 15-24) Another interesting feature of Luke's gospel is his attention to Jesus' parables. He includes more of them than any other gospel writer: 24 total with 18 of them unique, as compared with Matthew (23 total, 11 unique), Mark (8 total, 2 unique) and John (none). One particular stretch that stands out to me is in chapters 15-18, a group of 7 parables all unique to Luke. Probably the most famous of these - even many who have never read the Bible have heard of it - is best known as the parable of the prodigal son. But really this is a misnomer, isn't it? It would be better labeled as the parable of the two sons. A lot of focus is given to the prodigal, probably because of the encouragement we all receive from the great promise that no matter how far we've strayed, our Father will always welcome back those who repent. But I doubt this was even the main reason why Jesus told the parable. In 15:1-2 the context tells us that this parable was in response to the Pharisees and scribes grumbling about Jesus receiving and eating with "sinners." Jesus responds to them with two very short parables in which something is lost - first a sheep, then a coin. In both cases, all rejoice when that which was lost is found. The much longer parable of the two sons starts the same - a son is lost and the father rejoices when he is found - but it ends very differently. This time there is one who does not rejoice: the second son, an older brother. His reason? "I never disobeyed your command, yet you never..." threw a party for me (v. 29) The "sinners" the Pharisees and scribes were grumbling about are represented by the prodigal and the grumblers are represented by the older son. It seems to me that the main point of the parable is more about the second group. Instead of rejoicing as they should have when lost sinners become found, they were more concerned with their own self-righteousness, what they thought they deserved for their perceived obedience. The reality, of course, is that none of us are perfectly obedient, nor do we deserve anything from our Father. And yet, it is so easy for church folk to think just like these Pharisees when they compare their relatively upright lives to the sinners who surround them. It is this attitude that Jesus condemns. Father, help me to have your heart for the lost. That I would never set myself up as better or more deserving than them, but to remain aware of how all of us are only welcomed into your presence because of grace. In that spirit, help me to be welcoming to even the vilest sinner in the hope that they will turn back to You.

(Luke 1-14) Luke is arguably the most detailed of the gospels. This could be because Luke himself was a later convert, who did not actually witness the events as Jesus' disciples had, and seems to have compiled & recorded the information from other sources as suggested by his "prologue" (1:1-4). For example, Luke is the only gospel writer who includes the aspects of the birth narrative that we typically refer to as the "Christmas Story" including the angelic visitations, Caesar's decree that brought Mary & Joseph to Bethlehem, and his nativity in the manger. These are important details - obviously - and we should not take them for granted, but upon this reading what really stood out to me is Luke's emphasis on the marginalized. It seems to me that his birth account could only have come from Jesus' mother (cf. 2:19), he also mentions the prophetess Anna (2:26-28), yet the testimony of women were not valued in that culture. Luke is the only one who mentions Levi's party with the tax collectors (5:27-32). Then there is the healing of the centurion's son (a Gentile, 7:1-10) and the widow's son (another woman, 7:11-15). In fact, without counting verses, it seems to me that more women are featured in this gospel than any other. Does any other gospel writer even mention that women followed Jesus along with the twelve? (cf. 8:1-3) This reminds me that the Lord seems to favor the meek, lowly, humble, and oppressed. I think it's fair to say that unless we first become meek, lowly, and humble, we will not be accepted by Him. This seems to be the point of the parables of the wedding feast and the great banquet (which, again, are only recorded by Luke) in 14:7-24. Lord, help me to develop a humble and lowly spirit, never to try and exalt myself or to behave as if I am somehow worthy of your merciful gifts. And help me to be one who shares your compassion and love for the downtrodden and marginalized.