Volleyball Promo Video

I can't figure out how to embed video on my blog right not (it has been too long) thus I will give you this link to a Beach Volleyball Promo Video we made for our church league. Hope you enjoy it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwDHX1VNs9g

I am off to Turkey and will look forward to sharing with you upon my arrival. Your prayers are appreciated.

Mark

I Met God in Oregon: Sabbath Rest by the Sea

When most of us hear the word "Sabbath" we think of Old Testament laws and rules. We view those things as a bit of a drag to everday life. But we need to change our thinking about such things. This weekend Grant Fredrickson (the youth Pastor at SDBC) and myself (along with four other great leaders) took six graduates down to the Oregan Coast for a celebration of their graduation from high school and initiation into adulthood. It was an amazing time. It was challenging for me as Erin and Sienna were not able to come (which makes me wonder about Turkey--13 days away from them!) and I missed them like crazy. But I was able to enjoy the trip despite their absence. What was most important about the trip for me aside from the times where we were able to affirm and pray for each graduate, was that it was a weekend away; it was a weekend without telephones, internet, or TV. It was a weekend where my work was people--talking, laughing, eating. Many who went on the trip likely feel tired, because we were up late, sleeping in tents, being wet with rain, and driving for hours each day (it takes 9 hours to drive there)--but amazingly I feel rested. I feel like I just took a four day sabbath, where I was able to just be. And that is what Sabbath is about--being, enjoying God, resting, being with the family of God, eating meals together, reflecting on what God is doing in our lives.

Unfortunately Sabbath has been abandoned by our culture. But what do we expect from a culture defined by liberal-democratic-capitalism? To close the doors of a store for a day is devastating to business, thus Western culture, though it is "built on Judeo-Christina values" (though I am not sure this is as true as some think it is), has abadoned sabbath for business. But my concern here is not a critique of of the Western-dehumanizing machine of the corporatation, but of our personal responsibility to God, to ourselves and to our loved ones to simply rest. To stop and reflect on the week, prepare for the coming week, and enjoy. To rest. This weekend the noises stopped, the buzzing was muted and the emails simply went unanswered, and amazingly the world did not collapse, the church is still standing and Jesus is still at work in the world.

The Bible has a concept of justice and sabbath called Jubilee, where every fifty years God called the Israelites to rest for one year. They would have to stop tilling the land, to allow the land to rest and heal, they would set free any slaves they owend, and they would forgive any debt of money that someone owed them. You see Sabbath is a gift. God recognizes that society needs to stop and forgive a debt once in a while (Third-world debt to the Western world that will never be paid?), people need to be set free from oppression, people need rest in order to function. Human beings were not made to be actively working 7 days a week--only six, and then rest. This week I felt the power of Sabbath, with two elements standing out most prominently: relationship and worship. That is what we were made for (Gen.1-2). The Oregan Coast is a beautfil thing: waves crashing into rocks, beaches, and even desert that spans as far as the eye can see--I met God in Oregan this weekend and he held me in his arms as I rested.

Jerry Falwell: Dead at age 73

What do you say when someone dies that, while they were living, you so strongly disagreed with? It makes you wonder...Many of my Christian friendds responded to the death of Jerry Falwell today with about as much sympathy that they could muster: "I didn't really like that guy", another "I have mixed feelings"--what would cause someone to have mixed feelings about a Christian brother and leader dying? Well, to begin with Falwell was the personification of much of what present Christian teachers in Canada and more progressive America (including myself) are trying to get away from. Pompous, judgmental, triumphalist, ultra-conservative, and on it goes...we do not see this as the attitude of our Jesus.

I wonder at a Christians dedication to establishing the kingdom of God through politics more so than leading the alternative community--the church to work for the world. I believe the church is to work above and beyond the governments of the world to establish peace, justice and mercy in the world--adn use the governments when necessary, adn defintently take part in government and politics shaped around what Jesus has called us to. Though Jerry and I might disagree about what Jesus has called us to (making sure homosexuals never get married or working for the poor and needy of the world? Trying to identify a homosexual Teletubbie or working to eradicate extreme third-world debt?)

His politics didn't help either. His politics were unashamedly right-wing--which isn't fully problematic for the right has good positions on some things in my opinion(sexual morality, abortion) but does not in some other things, and it was those things that Falwell was at times blindly supporting (i.e. the war-machine) in the administrations of both Bush I and II. It is here that I have the biggest problem with right-wing positions, especially Christians who follow it blindly: violence (as you can see from my latest blogs) is diamtertically opposed to the following Jesus. There really is no wiggle-room; in studying the New Testament for seven years I have yet to see room for even discussion on "just war". This always raises questions, which fall outside this entry, but the statement still stands.

Anyway, above and beyond whether I agreed with what Falwell stood for, he fought zealously for what he believed God was calling him to; and though I wonder about some of the more radical statements, positions he took (i.e. the video above)--I can identify with a person doing everything he can do to have heard what he perceives to be the message God has given him. I may disagree with him, but how could I live for unity among the people of God if I can't extend gratefulness to a man who lived out his passions for Jesus, even if it is different then how I am doing it? I guess I could say he knows better now--but that is a two way street isn't it?

Lord have mercy on Jerry's soul...as he enters your presence may we be reminded of the vulnerability of our lives and that they rest in your hands. That at any moment you could take us up to yourself. And someday soon we will all face your your just and good judgment-- some going to life and others to punishment-- and thank you for Jesus, that he provided a way to be forgiven and to enter into life both on that day and amazingly even now as we live here on earth for your glory. Amen.

Jesus and War II: The Churches Relationship to Government

As I struggle through this question I find the following article of faith helpful. It is from the Mennonite Confession:

We believe that the church is God's "holy nation," 1 called to give full allegiance to Christ its head and to witness to all nations about God's saving love.
The church is the spiritual, social, and political body that gives its allegiance to God alone. As citizens of God's kingdom, 2 we trust in the power of God's love for our defense. The church knows no geographical boundaries and needs no violence for its protection. The only Christian nation is the church of Jesus Christ, made up of people from every tribe and nation, 3 called to witness to God's glory.

In contrast to the church, governing authorities of the world have been instituted by God for maintaining order in societies. Such governments and other human institutions as servants of God are called to act justly and provide order. 4 But like all such institutions, nations tend to demand total allegiance. They then become idolatrous and rebellious against the will of God. 5 Even at its best, a government cannot act completely according to the justice of God because no nation, except the church, confesses Christ's rule as its foundation.

As Christians we are to respect those in authority and to pray for all people, including those in government, that they also may be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. 6 We may participate in government or other institutions of society only in ways that do not violate the love and holiness taught by Christ and do not compromise our loyalty to Christ. We witness to the nations by being that "city on a hill" which demonstrates the way of Christ. 7 We also witness by being ambassadors for Christ, 8 calling the nations (and all persons and institutions) to move toward justice, peace, and compassion for all people. In so doing, we seek the welfare of the city to which God has sent us. 9

We understand that Christ, by his death and resurrection, has won victory over the powers, including all governments. 10 Because we confess that Jesus Christ has been exalted as Lord of lords, we recognize no other authority's claims as ultimate.

Mark Addition: This position is where I find myself. How about you?

Guest Blogger (John Whitehead): Jesus and War

“Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” ~ Jesus

With President Bush’s veto of the recent spending bill, fighting in the Middle East will continue indefinitely – wars not only waged by an avowed Christian president but also backed by the evangelical Christian Right. Rev. Jerry Falwell, in speaking of terrorists, epitomizes the Bush Administration’s stance: “I’m for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes 10 years, blow them away in the name of the Lord.” In this way, Christianity is joined with the state and its war machine.

However, what would Jesus think about this in light of his teachings against the use of violence – war, of course, being organized, systematic violence? One can only imagine that he would be horrified.

After all, many who strive to follow Jesus’ teachings find it impossible to do so and still participate in war. Indeed, leaders in the early church adopted Jesus’ attitude of nonviolence. Tertullian (born about AD 160), one of the giants of the early church, stated very clearly that confessing “Jesus as Lord” means taking the teachings of Jesus seriously. Just as Caesar commanded men to kill their enemies, Jesus commanded them to love their enemies. Caesar made use of chains and torture, in much the same way as governments do today. Jesus, on the other hand, taught Christians to forgive and to sacrifice power for servanthood.
In fact, Tertullian had pithy advice for soldiers who converted to Christianity: quit the army or be martyred for refusing to fight. Tertullian was not alone in his thinking. “For three centuries,” writes biblical scholar Walter Wink in The Powers That Be (1998), “no Christian author to our knowledge approved of Christian participation in battle.” This, of course, changed in the third century when the church was institutionalized and became an integral part of the warring Roman Empire.

Jesus’ apostles never advocated violence. Rather, they urged their followers to suffer, forgive and trust God for the outcome rather than take matters into their own hands. And while they may have talked about warfare and fighting, it was not through the use of conventional weapons. For example, the Apostle Paul wrote: “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.”
Christ’s crucifixion was a radical repudiation of the use of violent force. And the cross, which was the Roman tool of execution, was reserved especially for leaders of rebellions. “Anyone proclaiming a rival kingdom to the kingdom of Caesar would be a prime candidate for crucifixion,” writes Brian McLaren in The Secret Message of Jesus (2006). “This is exactly what Jesus proclaimed, and this is exactly what he offered.” But Jesus’ kingdom was one of peace. Among other things, he proclaimed, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also.” Consequently, Jesus ordered Peter not to use the sword, even to protect him.

The so-called Roman peace (Pax Romana) was made possible by the cross. That is, people so feared crucifixion that many opted not to challenge the emperor rather than face the possibility of death on the cross. Why then would early Christians choose the cross – an instrument of torture, domination, fear, intimidation and death – as their primary symbol? What could this possibly mean?

For early Christians, “it apparently meant that the kingdom of God would triumph not by inflicting violence but by enduring it,” notes McLaren, “not by making others suffer but by willingly enduring suffering for the sake of justice – not by coercing or humiliating others but by enduring their humiliation with gentle dignity.” Jesus, they believed, had taken the empire’s instrument of torture and transformed it into God’s symbol of the repudiation of violence. The message? Love, not violence, is the most powerful force in the universe.

Not surprisingly, the early Christians were not crusaders or warriors but martyrs – men and women with the faith and courage to face the lions. Like Jesus, they chose to suffer rather than inflict violence. When Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers,” exhorting his followers to turn the other cheek and give freely, he was telling us that active peacemaking is the way to end war. Can you imagine what the world would be like if every church adopted that attitude and focused its energies on active peacemaking?

The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who vocally opposed the Vietnam War, took to heart Jesus’ teachings about peacemaking. In his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, King proclaimed: Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal. We will not build a peaceful world by following a negative path. It is not enough to say “we must not wage war.” It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it. We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war but the positive affirmation of peace.

This is not to say that Jesus was a pacifist. The opposite is true. He spoke truth to power and engaged in active resistance to injustice. In my opinion, Jesus would have intervened to defend someone being violently mistreated, and I believe we must do the same. But he would never have engaged in violence as the means to an end.

One has to wonder what Jesus would say about war being waged in his name today. As Gary Wills writes in What Jesus Meant (2006), “If people want to do battle for God, they cannot claim Jesus has called them to this task, since he told Pilate that his ministers would not do that.” In fact, as Wills notes, Jesus “never accepted violence as justified.”

Mark's addition: It is interesting to note the anabaptists tradition on this question: that it is the governments job to bear the sword and fight wars etc (Rom.13.1-7), but that Christians are not supposed to fight at all in armies or even to add to the fighting by being involved in politics, becausew we are to repay evil with love (Rom.12). Their posture ia to serve God and the world--I heard someone say it this way recently. If I could talk to George Bush I would say "As the President I respect your right to bear the sword of justice etc.,--though I think this particular war was a mistake; then I would take him aside and say as a brother in Christ 'What are you doing! Not only should you not be fighting this war, but you shouldn't be President in the first place. It's not the Christians job in the world."

I have to say, this is the position I am working through in my mind--it seems to make sense of Scripture and out of Jesus. What do you think? There are parts of it that resonate with me and other parts that I have concerns about--but what do you think it?

The Resurrection of Jesus (John): New Creation

One could argue that John is written from a post-resurrection point of view. Think of chapter 2, when Jesus has gone in to the Temple and acted out that parable of destruction. Jesus says “Destroy this Temple and I will raise it again in three days.”

Then John brings in his own comments (which he often does) and he tells us what the underlying meaning was in Jesus’ rebuke: he says “But the temple he spoke of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said.” So John is not trying to surprise anyone in ch.20 and 21 with his resurrection narratives.

But we could come to the conclusion of resurrection by following John’s logic all the way through his gospel. He presents Jesus as fulfilling and surpassing Jewish customs:

John cast Jesus in a particular role in his gospel, always placing Jesus in the vicinity of Jewish festivals. The importance of Jesus actions and words around these festivals are crucial to understanding the Jesus of the fourth gospel.

The culture of his day would not have missed his message: Jesus was claiming to be superseding those rituals/symbols that they held dear, and was redefining; indeed replacing, the entire focus of the relationship between God and his people.

And so John again and again summons Israel to quiet down and ‘believe’; for what they are about to see will take them from the familiar words of “In the beginning” to the equally familiar “It is finished”, but this time it is not only the story of creation that John is telling but the story of new creation, or in other words: Jesus focused creation.

So, in chapters 1-4 Jesus is seen to be the one who brings the new wine, new temple, new birth, new law and living water which leads to true worship. He replaces these symbols as the focus of their meaning. They were outlines, shadows being cast ahead. Shadows that had a shape and told a story, and now, only by looking at Jesus is that shape properly filled in: why were humans created in God’s image?

John says that it has something to do with the fact that the Word had to, at one time become flesh and dwell among us. Humans were made to reflect God’s image, so that one day God could appropriately become human himself. In is within this idea that we need to see the idea of ‘resurrection’ in John. But how we get there?

There are two passages specifically that need mentioning at this point:

First, is John chapter 5: where Jesus spells out in v.25ff that there will be a great day of resurrection, where “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live”— which points forward to the raising of Lazarus, who indeed hears Jesus voice when he cries out to him, John tells us “with a loud voice” ‘Lazarus come forth’. (It is often pointed out that he said Lazarus’ name, because if he hadn't specified it, maybe everyone in their tombs would have come out)

But in ch.5.29 Jesus’ point, like that of Daniel 12, is that there will come a day when all people will rise, those who had done bad to a resurrection of judgment and those who had done good (like Lazarus) to a resurrection of life. But in a very real way John explains that Jesus has taken th end-time expectation of resurrection and ushered it into the present: Jesus says in 5.25 “an hour is coming and now is”. So, just like the “eternal life” discussion in John as ‘life of the new age’ being already experienced by those who believe, so this resurrection life is also something that is present through the ministry of Jesus.

But what about Lazarus (John 11)? 1) Lazarus’ resurrection is a signpost pointing toward Jesus’ own resurrection, but there are a couple of differences and identifying those differences helps to make John’s theological point.

a. Lazarus comes back to the same kind of life that he has experienced before, where he shares in a dinner party and he finds himself even facing death threats (Read 12.10). So, what is the difference? The journey that Jesus would make is a journey through death and out the other side into a new sort of existence. There could be no death threats made toward Jesus that would hold any water.

b. Lazarus came from the tomb wearing his graveclothes, but Jesus’ resurrection body apparently passed through those clothes: wrappings that Jesus will never again have use for, but something which Lazarus will indeed need again.

John is the only one that draws attention to the body wrap of Jesus. He says (20.6) “and he saw the linen wrappings lying there and the face cloth which had been on his head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself”. The point is that someone has not only taken the body away, but they have gone to the trouble of unwrapping it! And not only that but the head wrapping is where the head used to be! Someone having unwrapped the body, has worked to create an effect: it looks as though the body was not picked up and unwrapped, but that it had just disappeared, leaving the empty clothes, like a collapsed air balloon. What Jesus had experienced was to be seen as the next step in resurrection- a step that surpasses Lazarus by a mile.

SIGNS

John gives his readers ‘signs’ which he says are to lead people to ‘believe’ in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. And at the end of his gospel we see Thomas who gives the greatest proclamation of faith in the Gospel: “My Lord and my God” he says. When does he make this confession? When he meets the resurrected Jesus. Thus we should conclude that the resurrection is the final great climactic ‘sign’ . After Jesus turns the water into wine, in ch.2, John says, “this was the beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee”; and so saying that it’s the first sign alerts us that there are more to come. And so Jesus, in chapter 4 heals the centurions servant from a distance and John says “this was the second sign that Jesus did”. Having pointed out these first two John says in effect: alright your on your own from here.

And so we count: the paralyzed man at the pool of Bethesda, the multiplication of the loaves, the man born blind, the raising of Lazarus, the crucifixion and finally the climactic sign the resurrection itself. This is everything you need, John says to see and believe. But come back to the numbers, notice what number sign the resurrection was: sign eight.

So, what is significant about that? In the Jewish story (and more specifically in John’s writing of that story) this eighth sign is one that declares something in itself. Six signs in ch.1-12 and then nothing else by way of signs for the next 6 chapters. What no more signs? Surely John knows that the number six is nothing compared to the number seven. And why should we have seven in mind? Think back to chapter 1 “In the beginning…” (1.1)— John is writing a new Genesis, and thus these are the 7 signs of the new creation, paralleling with the seven days of the first creation.

And so, the cross is the seventh sign and just as the sixth day of the creation story consisted of the creation of human beings in God’s image, so Pilate displays Jesus on the sixth and final day of the passion week and says “Behold the man” and just how that sixth day had ended in triumph when God finished all the work he had done to rest on the seventh (Gen. 2.1-3), so the last words of the pre-Easter Jesus in John’s Gospel are “It is finished!” (19.30) and Jesus then rests’ in the silence of the tomb.

So what are we to make of the resurrection in this paradigm? John begins his resurrection narrative then with a shocking phrase, with heavy echoes from the creation account “On the first day of the week, when it was still dark” (20.1). This was the scene for the proclamation of the true light that shines in the world. This was the first day of the new creation week. Easter is the start of new creation.

So John's story is that Jesus died on behalf of Israel and thus on behalf of the rest of the world. That death and resurrection was redemptive because it ushered in the ‘age to come’. And now anyone who believes becomes part of the ‘new age’ people of God— children who are called to be people of ‘light’ and ‘life’; people called to a new day and thus a new way of being human. AMEN!