"I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me." Open and shut case, Jesus is the only way to God! Or is it? To get away from the "embarassment" of the exclusive claims of the historical Jesus, some Christians have found a way to read this passage in a way that would not have to call non-Christians to faith in the historical Jesus. I would like to call attention to this.

    What is this new way? It is to redefine the "I". The "I" has now become the cosmic Christ, a force/spirit that embodies certain human beings, a force/spirit that is moving in history. It is a spirit that human beings could tap into. It is a Spirit that embodies Jesus, a spirit that is the way, the truth, and the life. Some may cleverly equate this Spirit with the Holy Spirit that proceeds from God the Father and the Jesus of history, and also point out the the Logos, a universal principle, became flesh, giving credence to their view.  

     Most of you probably have your Spiritual antennas up and you want to say "Heresy!".  Yes it is, but why? Some of you may want to marshall your knowledge of scriptures. However, I just want to point out that there is a simpler way to declare this to be heresy. It is contained in an ancient document that many Christians give lip service to due to the anti-traditional fervor in some circles. It is a document that defines Christian faith, a document that should be studied and taken to heart by Christians. It is the Apostle's Creed. The creed is clear that there is no separation between Jesus and the "Christ". 

I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, his only son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucidied, dead and was buried...(You know the rest)

     What makes orthodox Christian faith powerful? It is the declaration that God did really act in history. We are not just believing that "Love" burst forth from the grave (a nice sentiment), but that the man Jesus of Nazareth burst forth from the grave. Sure it may be unpalatable for the "sophisticated" person to believe that a man can actually rise from the dead, but nevertheless that is the orthodox Christian proclamation. To deny that is to depart from Chrisitan faith. It is an incredible proclamation that seem foolish to some. I challenge you to root your faith in history, just like the Apostle's Creed has attempted to do. "God loves you" is not just a sentimental statement. God showed his love in history, not just through giving us good things, which is something we could be grateful for, but through the objective history of Jesus of Nazareth. Remember that his Jewish man who lived more than 2000 years ago is the one that Christians worship, not a disemodied spirit that once embodied the man Jesus. 

     "Believe you are a sinner, Believe that Christ died for you, and you are saved" In my sin of intellectual superiority, I have sometimes been very critical of certain people. An example of those people are those "fundamentalists" (for lack of a more accurate term) who I thought were unsophisticated. I am repenting of that and am revisiting this foundational statement of faith.  

     The reason I was critical of this statement of faith is that nobody really knows the depth of human sin. That is why we get defensive when somebody points something out to us that is wrong, instead of admitting that there may be issues in my heart that I need to look at. We chalk sin up to bad upbringing or traumas. Although bad upbringing and traumas may cause a person to sin, the sin is still the person's and whether we like it or not, God holds the person responsible for his reactions to the circumstances in his life. It takes time and soul-searching to really believe this profession. Sin ultimately is an heart issue and to really recognize sin, we need to be acquainted with our hearts- our desires, imaginations, etc. This means, nobody is really "saved" through that converstaion that ended in the person saying the prayer. Its a journey to even start with believing that you are a sinner.

     Another reason is that Jesus' call to discipleship starts with telling people "Come, Follow me" He did not ask them to believe that you are a sinner first. However, as Jesus walked on earth, he showed the depths of human sin in his teaching. He did this alongside assurances and demonstration of God's care for people. Jesus proclaimed that there is a judgment coming, which points to the devastating consequence of sin. Man's rejection of God, which is the foundation of human sin, culminated in Jesus' death on the cross, which we commemmorate on Good Friday. This moment in history is the moment of freedom from guilt.

     As Jesus showed the seriousness of sin, the audience were divided into two sides- those that trust in their own righteousness and those that recognize their sinfulness. Today, this battle continues. There are people on the church who trumpet their righteousness through legalism, thinking they can set up "rules" to be a good Christian. There are also people who trumpet their righteousness by changing God's standards, proclaiming things that were clearly declared to be wrong okay. Both sides deny human guilt, which makes the gospel make sense. The gospel (God so loves the world that he gave his only son so that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life) does not make sense without the reality of human guilt. The depth of God's love could not be fathomed without first acknowdedging the depth of human sin. Some may think guilt is unhealthy but I believe that biblically, it is the foundation of true spiritual understaning. If we truly want to experience God's love, we have to experience the depth of our sin. We don't deserve what we have (common grace or eternal life) but God gives them to us anyway.

    How do we then respond? I truly believe we are making light of sin by giving the gospel message as "Believe you are a sinner, Believe in Jesus, then you will be saved." It takes community and relationships to bring out the realization that you are a sinner. The invitation should be to join the community that listens to Jesus. This community should not be just a community that cares, important as it is, but a community that acknowledges sin- not trying to eliminate it by creating an atmosphere where people are afraid to acknowledge sin or trying to eliminate it by redefining what constitutes sin. In adition, it is not just believing that Jesus covers our sin that saves us, but belief in the sense of entrusting our whole lives to him, an acknowledgement of his deity. That also takes a lifetime to truly believe. Salvation is a journey and Christ calls us to join in that journey. 

     As I was thinking of the culture war between the secular west and Islamic fundamentalism, I thought about the beginning of the book of Habakkuk, one of the prophetic books of the bible. The situation was that there was rampant corruption and oppression among God's people (Israel). The prophet Habakkuk complained to God about this situation, asking God to rectify it- destroy the oppressors, bring justice. God's response was shocking. He would bring out the Babylonians- an idolatrous and violent people, to destroy Israel. 

     My sense of what the future holds reminds me of the dialogue between Habakkuk and God. Many religious people decry the moral decline of the secular west, that seems to move farther and farther away from God's revelation of what is right and wrong. However, coming on the horizon is the increasing power of radical Islam. As the west faces declining populations, it seems inevitable that the radical Islamists will soon have the upper hand.

     I want to reflect on Habakkuk's shock and disapproval of God's plan of fixing injustice. Many people see the secular west as the good guys, the promoter of tolerance and freedom, and the Islamic radicals as the bad guys, promoters of hate and moral rigidity. However, anti-semitism is still alive and well in the west, which is supposed to be a bastion of tolerance. This is not to mention the name calling and misrepresentation secular ideologues engage in when confronted with opposing views that seek to preserve traditional values. 

     The point is we engage in black and white thinking. There are good guys and there are bad guys. We want the bad guys punished, rightly so. I can remember thoughts of indignation after the Newtown Conn. incident, or the gang-rape of a woman in India. God built a sense of justice in our hearts and it is natural to wish harm on those who do evil. It is right to bring criminals to justice because there is still crime in this age. In fact, it should bring us sorrow, not joy, that we have to impose justice because it shows that evil still has influence in our world.

     However, our thirst for justice should be tempered by the realization that evil is within all of us. The lust for power and controll, uncontrolled rage, etc. are also tendencies within us- from the seemingly innocent and helpful child to the criminal in death row. That is why, in Chrisitan theology, God destroys evil not by setting up two camps of people, one group to vanquish another. Instead, God took on humanity upon himself and brought all of humanity under judgment through his body. Therefore, as we relish in the destruction of evil, let us look at the broken body of the one whom Christians claim to be God incarnate. It is there where evil is dealt with, including our own evil. He died to put our bodies with its evil tendencies to death. That is the spiritual reality behind the death of Jesus and may we unite ourselves to that body, instead of setting ourselves apart from sinful humanity. 

     In the movie tooth fairy, there was one statement by the character of the "Rock" that was harsh but when you think about it, could save a person from a lot of suffering. A child approached the character, asked for an autograph and told him that he wanted to be like the "Rock" character when he grows up. The character then responded "lower your expectations."

     I have heard adults say to kids "You can be what you set your mind to be". Although this statement seems encouraging, this sets up a person for a lot of disappointment. It is just not true that a person can be whatever he wants to be or accomplish what he sets his sights on. Jim Kelly (quarterback for the Buffalo Bills team that went to the Super Bowl four times but never won) probably thought he would have a super bowl ring, and his expectations would have been valid. However, he did not win it. Imagine if his life was wrapped around winning the Super bowl someday, he could have fallen into depression. Other people may be dreaming the same things a child is dreaming and why should your child be the one whose dream is fulfilled? What if circumstances prevent that dream from being fulfilled (accident, disabilities, etc.)? That statement just does not add up and it just sets up a person for disappointment. The truth is you just may not get to where you set your mind to be.

     A closely related statement also produces disappointment- "I deserve..." This statement alientates people from each other. A husband of a sick woman may say "I deserve the pursuit of my dreams" but the reality of his circumstances may call for him to give up his dreams so he can focus on the other. Because the husband is trained to think about what he deserves, the circumstances will force him into a dilemma that would not have been there if he would have lived his life humbly, being grateful for what he has and focusing on the needs of others. The truth is a sense of entitlement is devastating for relationships and for society as a whole, creating chaos instead of peace.

     One wise saying from the bible that I think we need to think about when we think of the future is "Man sets a course in his heart, but the Lord directs his steps." This phrase tells us that our dreams are ultimately in the Lord's hands. We can be what we want to be only if God, the supreme power behind creation, wills it so. We have opportunities in life because God, the one in whose image we are created, willed it so. There is nothing inside creation that says we deserve life, peace, or a sense of honor. In fact, the natural course of life is harsh- wild animals kill to survive and the parts of nature wreak havoc on the whole. Chaos threaten creation every moment but there is a power that brings order out of chaos. The same one who brings order out of chaos is the one who leads our steps and brings true order to our lives. May we give our dreams to him instead of trying to order life around our dreams.    

     "If you want to have eternal life, give everything you have to the poor." This is one of Jesus' statements that people quickly reinterpret. Some point out that private property could not have been abolished since Jesus has rich followers (Martha, Mary, Lazarus), therefore Jesus could not have meant this literally. Some also point out that Jesus was just letting the rich young ruler know that he could not have eternal life without him.Those are valid points.

     However, could it be that in our reinterpretations, we may be guilty of assuaging our own souls or the souls of those who struggle with sin? Could we be inadvertently saying, "your lifestyte is OK, you don't have to worry about this passage (or other passages), and all you have do is believe in Jesus"? If those passages don't mean anything for those who believe, then what is the purpose of God sending his Spirit to indwell his people? Is it optional to walk in the Spirit? Or are there eternal ramifications for not walking in the Spirit? Does God's agenda only consist of making us right with him? Or is he concerned about transforming us and our communities? 

     As we approach the New Year, I would guess that some people's resolutions would be to follow the bible more. Although I commend the intent to follow God's word closely, the intent of God's word, through God's Spirit, is to convict people of sin. The word of God can do that only if we let the full force of its demands bring us into a point of fearing for our souls. 

      Jesus commended the tax collector who at the end of the day says "Forgive me for I am a sinner". The tax collector looks at himself and repents, putting himself at the hands of God. He is the one justified in God's sight. We condemn the pharisee for his self-righteousness, basically saying that he has followed God's commands, therefore he is righteous. However, aren't we guilty of righteousness through reinterpretation when we try to assuage our conciences, saying that our lack of generosity, for example, is OK? 

    This New Year, I challenge all of us to stop thinking of following the bible, but in developing a repentant heart, mindful that the bible does not just command proper actions but also proper emotions. If you focus on following the letter of the bible, you will reinterpret the commands of the bible to make it easier to follow, or just stop trying. A repentant heart will not just change our relationship with God, but also with other people. Instead of being defensive and feeling entitled to people's "respect", we would become thankful for the grace we receive every moment and approach others with humility.

    Only a repentant heart can look at the birth of Jesus as good news. The heart that tries to find loopholes by reinterpreting God's word so as not to disturb itself will not fully understand the full force of the good news that Jesus Christ is born. As the demands of God's standards threaten our souls, Jesus is the one who took the full force of that threat. If the soul does not feel the threat, then it would also not feel the relief that the gospel brings. A repentant soul is a blessed soul. 

     As I got home and greeted my daughter, she excitedly told me how she was commended by her teacher for paying attention in school. My heart was filled with joy knowing that my daughter cares about pleasing me. See, the day before we had a talk about paying attention to others.

     I imagine God is also joyful when we care about pleasing him. He does reward those who seek him. However, I can't help but think that God wants more from us than to please him, even if  the desire to please him is borne out of love. He commands his people to be holy as he is holy. He wants his people to share his holiness. He promises to write the law in his people's hearts. He wants his  law not just to be an external motivation but an internal drive for his people. He cares that we conform, not just out of desire for reward or fear of punishment, but because we share his heart.

     The search for reward or fear of punishment is not necessarily pure fear devoid of love. If we do what God says because we want good things in our lives and don't want bad things in our lives, that may be wise, but that is not love. However, if God's pleasure is a reward in itself for us, that is love. And if his displeasure in itself is displeasing to us, that is loving fear of the Lord.   

     I then got a glimpse of my task as a parent. I don't want my child doing the right things just because she wants a reward or is trying to avoid punishment. Reward and punishment could be tangible things (treats or timeouts), but could also be intangible things that communicate approval or rejection. Our children crave those too, and even as adults, we still crave those intangible rewards, whether we admit it or not. We will always desire appoval and shun rejection in our own ways. A parent's smile and loving look is an intangible reward that communicates pleasure. A parent's frown and demeaning talk is an intangible punishment that communicates rejection. Those intangible rewards and punishments stick to children's psyches even after adulthood and the death of their parents. Although its great that my daughter loves me enough to care about what I think, I want her to do the right things because she shares God's heart, and hopefully my heart as it reflects God's heart.

     One day I and my wife will be gone from this world. Its possible that my daughter will still live her life seeking approval from us, even though it would not be as obvious. We will just be voices and images in her heart. I hope that she will go beyond those voices and images, and find herself sharing the godly values we inculcated in her. I hope also that she will reject those ungodly values we may have, in our weakness, inadvertently communicated to her. God is the one I ultimately want my daughter, not just to please, but be united with in her heart.

    While my wife and I are still alive, I pray that we are humble enough to remember that God is the one she is ultimately to be like, not us. I pray that we are humble enough to realize that, because of our remaining sinfulness, she may be ahead of us in discerning God's heart. We may have to see God's heart  in her heart. 

     I admit it. Driving through downtown Chicago is very irritating to me. The traffic is so tight, even when it is not even rush hour. I avoid driving there to protect myself from rage. I sometimes imagine that the tower of Babel was actually a huge condominium, and people were moving back into the city. You know what happened to that city and to that tower.

    Complaining aside, I believe there really is something not right about overcrowded cities. This election, people are focused on the economy. Although I believe that a moral revival  is ultimately what is going to provide peace for this nation and for the people, It seems to be that God did have an economic policy in mind. When God created man, he told human beings to multiply and subdue the earth.

     For some people, the term "subduing the earth" connotes the destruction of creation. If creation is a gift from God, it is not something to be treated with disrespect- polluting unnecessarily or just using it without thinking of consequences. Would you treat a gift with contempt? The rape of creation is caused by the desire of a person or a civilization to amass resources for its glory. It is a product of the idea that creation exists for my glory or the glory of my civilization. The Spanish empire, instead of contributing to another culture, took gold from the Americas to finance its conquests and its luxury. The spread of humanity may be blamed for the lack of rootedness and the deterioration of familial relations. Although valid, we must remember that we bring children into the world not ultimately to be our sources of security (I am not saying that parents should not be their children's concern), but so that the earth will be filled with the glory of God. Also, our real rootedness should ultimately be in the eternal God.

    Nevertheless, despite the abuse of creation, creation is still made for the benefit of humanity. It is not something to be just left alone, for the protection of other species, but is to be harnessed for the benefit of humanity. We must live in harmony with it for our sakes, and it is not an enemy to be eradicated. Although Marijuana and Coca may be made into addictive drugs, we must be open to the idea that we can harness its benefits. It could help some economies and could help in the alleviation of suffering. Shaping creation- Genetic engineering, harnessing the power of the elements for energy, producing works of art and architecture, making wilderness areas more productive and inhabitable, clearing farmlands, exploration- these are all God ordained endeavors that promote prosperity.  

     If human beings are to spread out and subdue the earth, there is something not right about our overcrowded cities. A city may be overcrowded because all the wealth is concentrated in one area. But that concentration of wealth in one area is poor economic policy, even though it may be convenient for a time for those who benefit from this concentration of wealth. I am not an economic expert but I believe there is something to be said about choosing expansion over consolidation of wealth in one person or in one area.

    What practical ways can the government choose expansion over consolidation? By policies that promote relocations of peoples and the building of new communities. Maybe federal support could be moved from Universities to trade programs that would purposely train workers who would create new communities. Companies will be encouraged to invest in this new communities, not in adding businesses in already overcrowded metropolitan areas. What then happens to our deteriorated inner cities? They would be treated as "wildernesses" that needs to become productive and inhabitable again. The goal is the spread of wealth, not by taxation, but by spreading investments and people.

     Sometimes we as Western Christians get caught in the middle of a crisis of values. I am talking about the uproar by Muslims over the showing of a film that disrespects the Prophet Mohammed. On one side of the divide is the Western value for Freedom of Speech. On the other side is the Islamic respect for the sacred.

     We have to admit that if Jesus was being denigrated, Christians would feel very much offended, even though we may not go to lengths of those that perpetrated violence to defend the honor of Jesus. There may be reasons for that like the Chrisitian expectation that Jesus and his followers will be hated by the world. Disrespect for the people of God is natural and not something to be beaten down with a sword.

     My purspose in this blog is to caution us to just looking at this as a Freedom of Speech issue. There are heart issues involved. The  extreme secularism that denigrates the sacred is going face to face with extemist Islam that legitimizes the use of the sword as an expression of spiritual zeal. Although we Christians do not consider Muhammad our prophet, we must symphatize with the feelings of those offended Muslims. This historical drama provides an opportunity to preach to the heart of both sides.

     To those who disrespect the sacred, it must be proclaimed to them that there is a supernatural side of life that must be dealt with. Besides that, human sensibilities are to be respected. Although we may see political correctness as an overreaction, we have to admit that its concern for respecting human sensibilities is a worthy value. A father humiliating his child (at worse, yelling and hitting) to get him to do what he wants is not being a good father. A politician who insults his opponent's record as if his opponent is a bumbling fool or just evil, is not being a good person. We must not be quick to excuse insensitive behavior. Then to the zealous ones, violence is not the ultimate answer to evil. Although violence is sometimes necessary, it is not the ideal answer to injustice in the world. Violence begets more violence, which increases the suffering in the world. If we want peace, we need to contain our violent impulses.  

     I was listening to the radio a while ago and I heard this song that started out beautiful. It talked about a father holding his young daughter's hand as they walked on the street. It made me nostalgic about the times I spent walking with my young daughter. The song had a good melody to it too.

     Then the song moved to a point that made me increasingly uneasy. It talked about the father giving his daughter to her husband in marriage and instructing his son-in-law to hold her hand so she would be fine. Although the song could be seen as a celebration of the protective nature of the male-female relationship, I see the song as demeaning to women. In affirming the delicateness and preciousness of the woman, the song makes the woman somehow less capable in life. The woman in this song is an eternal child, whose hands need to be held.  

    As I make this observation, I don't want to go the way of radical feminism that sees the male-female relationship as an inherently oppressive one. The chip in the shoulder attitude of some women goes against the cultivation of a loving attitude. In Christian thought, the ruler is to be the servant of all. The trajectory of Christian life is towards equality. Men and women are to be submissive towards each other, giving up their interests for the sake of the other. Therefore, it is just as wrong for women to seek to dominate others and to succumb to selfish ambitions as it is for men.

     The bible does encourage to be considerate of the women, who are described as "weaker", probably in physical stature. It also does not explicitly subvert cultural partiarchy- it encouraged women to be submissive to their husbands just as the culture expects. However, women are not held back from roles of responsibility. There were women who helped build the wall of Jerusalem during the time of Nehemiah. Women held property. Miriam, along with Moses and Aaron, was considered to be one of the leaders of Israel. She was punished for trying to usurp Moses' authority not because she is a woman but because Moses was the one appointed by God. Female prophets were consulted by the people, including the king, notably King Josiah. The businesswoman of Proverbs 31 was commended for her management skills. The woman of the Song of Songs was open about the pursuit of her man. God's Spirit is given equally to both men and women.

     A careful reading of the bible yields a dynamic picture of woman that is very much in conflict with the view of women's position in the song. That is why this song is problematic, and so is the insistence that male and female roles are static.    

     The dispute between Chick-fil-a and mayor Rahm Emanuel made me think of the catchy tune "Everybody wants to Rule the World" You may ask "why?"

     Listening to how people, including myself, react to those they disagree with makes me think that there is a part of us that wants the world to be "the way I want it." "The way I want it" may be agreeable to most people and therefore it is uncontroversial or it may be disagreeable to many people and therefore controversial.

     If a Mcdonald's have an employee who is developmentally disabled and some customers insult that employee, what should the manager do. The manager may kick those customers out based on the statement in the restaurant that says "McDonald's reserves the right to refuse service to anybody". This rule may be agreeable to most of us when it is applied to this situation. However, imagine if they use this rule against homosexuals, for example. McDonald's action would probably become controversial and disagreeable.

      Why am I writing about this? I am trying to say that our right to shape our world the way we want is a double edged sword- it can bring us "thumbs up" or "thumbs down". If we want to stand by that right, we need to let go of our passion to shape our world as we would like, and our intolerance for any "imperfections" in our world. The truth is, the same passion to shape our world militates against the passion to protect rights. I am writing as an appeal to take it easy on controlling others, if we want ourselves to be respected. It does not work well in the family and it does not work well in society.