The Word

The Siren Song of Apostacy

5minutes — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:28:00 GMT

Throughout my years, I've encountered a lot of different people with a lot of different beliefs. While I could spend a lot of time focusing on the beliefs that are not Christian, I'd like to take a moment to focus on people who call themselves disciples of Jesus Christ, because within our faith is an urgent issue that must be addressed.

Within the Christian faith, there has been a growing movement towards what I like to call a more feminine approach to the faith. Now, I'm not trying to be sexist here or to imply that women are somehow wrong - in fact, I'm not really referring to women at all: I'm referring to a growing tendency within our faith and culture to "mother" each other - to treat each other as children and to approach our faith and our relationships from what seems to be a point of view that is solely based on emotion. We've become very careful about hammering the scripture home that says that we are to give offense to no man... Faith has become something that is developed around our emotional reaction to something. Being a Christian means "having a relationship" with Jesus. And not showing a gentle, sheep-like attitude towards everyone is proof that such a person must be silenced at all costs.

Perhaps I'm being blind to my own prejudices, but this reminds me of a mother I know who refused to let her son mow a lawn at the age of 14 because he might hurt himself. This whole image smacks of a mother clutching her 3-year-old child, protecting it from the world at all costs, and wanting nothing more than to keep this child permanently in a world of Ivory Snow-washed linens.

This is not what we are called to.

Two of the theses from A Call to Vision, the document that began Christian Metal Forums, state:

Thesis 25: We must restore our community to a thoughtful collection of Christians whose primary concern is not a person's feelings or sense of well-being, but whose primary concern is the communication of the Truth of the Gospel. (Mark 1:14-15, Romans 1:14-17)

Thesis 26: We must be willing to unashamedly identify heresy, apostasy, and evil for what it is, and must be willing to combat it. We are called to arms by our Commander in Chief in the battle against Satan, and we have a responsibility to respond to that call. To do any less is to compromise our responsibility to share the Gospel. (Galatians 5:7-12, Ephesians 6:10-18)

To this day, I believe that these two theses touch on the issues that are crippling the Christian Metal Community specifically and American Christianity as a whole. We have become a society and a religion that is so dependent on the sufficiency of good feelings, rather than the sufficiency of Christ, that when we are faced with something that is utter and rank heresy, we have gone from being the church founded on the Way, the Truth, and the Life to the social club that kinda agrees - if that's OK with everyone - that Jesus was a really neat guy that we can't really know because there were conspiracies to keep the real Jesus hidden, but we know that He just wants to have a relationship with you and be your friend, but it's OK if you don't fall into line with us - we appreciate you, anyway.

This is not what we are called to.

True, there are elements of truth in this belief. Jesus does want to have a relationship with you, and I'd be willing to wager that He was a really neat guy. But Christianity is more than this. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and when we are faced with the subtle, evil lies of Satan, we are required - compelled - to confront them. We are told to "resist the devil". We are told - repeatedly - in scripture how the early church faced down heresies and apostacies that threatened to destroy the infant church from within. We have story after story throughout history of Christians being persecuted, tortured, and murdered - and it wasn't because they believed in Buddy Jesus.

They believed that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and they were bold enough - and driven by the Spirit enough - to stand up to the authorities that be and to stand firm on the foundation the God had given them. They were bold enough to call the Gnostics "antichrist" - the only actual reference to antichrist in all of scripture, in fact, not because they got some kind of cheap thrill out of watching someone squirm, but because they had the Truth, and they knew that to allow any compromise to the Truth was a dangerous, damnable offense. They knew that there was a greater need for people to know the truth and the facts of the situation than there was for them to feel like they were getting spiritually filled at every church service.

Recently, I followed the conversation of a guy I've known on the web for a couple of years now. His beliefs have drifted from self-driven fundamentalism to universalism to agnosticism. Recently, he's found "it" in Gnosticism. What concerned me most, however, was not that this fellow had gone gnostic... it was that while there were some people who were more than willing to tell him the truth, there were other Christians who were driven more by a desire for acceptance than a desire for this man to come to Christ. They extolled the benefits of gnosticism and couldn't possibly see how anyone could be so mean as to tell this guy that his soul was in danger of Hell.

This is not what we are called to.

We MUST act. Those of us who are driven by the Gospel must know what awaits people who reject the Gospel, and that knowledge must drive us to tell the Truth. We must be willing to offend. We must be willing to stop coddling. We must be willing to knock people over and allow themselves to dust themselves off, not so that they can feel good about themselves, but so that they can come to the Cross. Their souls are much, much more important than their feelings.

Repent and Believe the Gospel

5minutes — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:37:00 GMT

14Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

I could spend, quite literally, days going through these 2 simple verses, going into the ins and outs of why John was arrested and why Jesus came to Galilee and what Jesus had been up to prior to this event, but the simple fact is that these 2 simple verses are, perhaps, the most important verses in the entirety of scripture.

John's in jail, and we know what the outcome will be. The point is that his job is done. His job as the messenger, the one who makes the way for the man about to come, is complete now that Christ has come onto the scene. His work is at an end, and it's time for people to see the man whose sandals John wasn't even fit to untie as the lowliest servant in a household.

And Christ has come... and His first statement, the very first thing He says as a part of His earthly ministry is a mirror of John's use of Baptism for repentance and forgiveness of sins.

First, Jesus announces: The time is fulfilled. Jewish prophecies had foretold the coming of the Messiah since the Fall of Man, and Jesus begins His ministry by making it clear that the prophecies - these predictions and promises that God had made to the Jews, and the rest of the world, had been fulfilled. All this stuff you've been waiting for since the Father promised that Eve's son would crush the head of the serpent? It's here.

Now... the formula is simple: repent and believe the Gospel.

This is such a simple formula, but there's so much in there that we easily pass over...

The first step is simple: repent. Strong's concordance has an intesting definition for this that I think give us a great picture of what we're really to do. Repent isn't merely saying "sorry" - it's a total reversal of mind. Strong's calls it "to amend with abhorrance for one's past sins". In other words: we come to a realization of the cost that Sin has had in our life, and we make the decision to surrender that Sin to the Cross. Again - when the Bible talks about sin, I don't really think it means only "bad behavior". Sin is that infection that has covered our entire existence from within and without, that makes us completely incapable of pleasing God.

In other words: when the Bible tells us that it's impossible to please God without faith, it's not because He's big and we're little. it's because He's Holy and we're... well, I like that word "abhorrent" that Strong's uses. The Bible tells us that our best behavior, our righteousness, our most wonderful act we can put on for God is like a pile of nasty, disgusting rags only fit to be tossed in the incinerator.

And it's from this that we repent. We recognize our pitiful nature and our complete inability to do anything about it, and if that were the end of the story, it'd be a depressing, painful tale of woe.

But it's not. Believe the Gospel. Believe the Good News. Believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Believe that He is the Messiah, sent to earth to save us from our Sin.

Tempted Like Me - Mark 1:12-13

5minutes — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:54:00 GMT

12The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. 13And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him.

If you've ever read this study by me before, I've changed a few things. While they are small changes, the potential consequences of those changes are impressive.

Now that's He's baptized and humiliated in public and fully a member of the Jewish community, Jesus's next step is to head off to the Wilderness.

But let's not mistake ourselves - this is not a vacation or weekend excursion. This isn't a walkabout or our modern equivelent of "bumming around Europe for a year" or a willful decision to take some time off to focus on spiritual needs. No. Jesus is driven by the Spirit - the same one that showed up as a dove at the Baptism. The Greek term here is ekballo (ekballo), and is often used in connection with exorcisms. It is an active compulsion that the NIV just doesn’t capture very well with the concept of the Spirit “sending” Jesus out.

But that’s not to say that Jesus went unwillingly. What we have here that we can take away is the living, breathing example of Someone whose life is guided – pushed – moved by the Holy Spirit, who is compelled to do the work of God. There is no other option, and for Jesus, God’s plan – and Christ’s plan – was for Christ to be tempted.

Of course - let's not forget that Jesus isn't exactly like us. While we're 100% human, he was both 100% man and 100% God, so the concept of Jesus isn't one like ours, where we're guided or pushed by God. Jesus WAS God. So He was compelling Himself. We are compelled by God. A minor difference, but an important one.

Now, Mark omits some of the details present in the other synoptic Gospels, but the gist of what Mark omits is this: Christ was tempted in all things, and I do mean “all things”. He was presented with power, pride, lust… He was given the option to take His rightful place and to establish His own plan apart from the Father. But for Jesus – it wasn’t even an option. He was compelled. He was pushed ahead by the Spirit. Could He have?

Originally, when I first worked up this study a few years ago, I said "Sure". But having given it some thought, I have to say: no. Jesus could not have. Oh, sure, He has the power to do whatever He wants, and what He chooses to do is good and Godly, but the concept of falling to temptation simply isn't an option for Him. The option wasn’t even on the plate. There is no option for Him to sin, and so to some extent, Satan's gesture of temptation was a hollow one.

Having said that, why go through with it? Why would Jesus allow Himself to be tempted by Satan? There is no purpose in it from a strategic point of view because Satan had to know that Jesus could not and would not sin. I believe the reason for the tempation is the same Gospel Jesus called us to believe back in verses 4 and 5.

For our sake, God needed to show us a Lord and Savior who wasn’t and isn't some unreachable, untouchable abstract. On one hand, we need to know that we are responisble for our sin, and that we are ultimately damned because of it. By being tempted and refusing the temptation, Christ demonstrates to us that it is possible... and more importantly, that we fail miserably. He, on the other hand, did not fail. Sin could be defeated, but we are completely incapable of doing so because we, unlike Jesus, are corrupted by the Fall of Adam.

Which brings us to the other hand. We need a Savior that we can "touch", and by being tempted and resisting that temptation, we now have in front of us a Lord and Savior who, as Hebrews 4:15 puts it: "…not…a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but…one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin." In Christ, we not only have a Savior, but a hope that our temptations to fill ourselves with the lusts of this world are able to be overcome – through Him, and Him alone.

One of the major weaknesses I've seen with the Messiahs of other faiths is that, frankly, they are untouchable. In Islam, for instance, we are faced with a "messiah" in the form of Mohammed who is not only untouchable, you can't even draw him without offending the god of the Muslim faith. In Buddhism, not only is the salvation of Nirvana a "state of mind", but the ultimate teaching of Buddhism is that nothing "real" exists, and that only the esoteric is real - a belief echoed to some degree in Hinduism.

But Christianity offers something different. Not only is our Messiah real and touchable, He was 100% human, tempted by sin just like us, but as 100% God, he was also able to completely resist that temptation. His temptation was real. His nail-scarred hands are real. His salvation is real.

I would like to take a moment before closing to briefly deal with a contradiction between the synoptic accounts of the events after the baptism and the Johanine account. As you explore the faith and share it, you are bound to encounter certain anti-Christian zealots who consider themselves to be experts on the Christian faith. These people are silly, but they are also highly deceptive and occasionally well-trained, and if you encounter one, I’d like you to be armed.

John 1:35 says that Jesus showed up again “on the next day”, which seems to contradict the statement in Mark that He was immediately driven by the Spirit into the Wilderness Temptation. This is not a problem and there isn't a contradiction. The Baptism is not recorded in John - it is only mentioned. This means that the events that take place on the "next day" occur on the day after John bore witness – not the day after Jesus’ baptism.

This is another example of why you need to read scripture carefully, and if you have a problem understanding something, ask.

Mark: The Baptized Son

5minutes — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:43:00 GMT

Mark 1:9-11

9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opening and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."

One of the most basic, most misunderstood doctrines in scripture is that of the Trinity. One of the biggest arguments leveled against Trinitarianism is the fact that the word "Trinity" is not actually found in scripture. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the basic fact that the concept of the Trinity is found throughout scripture. Genesis 1 says that God said "let us make man in our image", so from the get-go, we know that there's more than one part of the Godhead.

But it takes the Gospels with their early look at the life of Christ to really nail down the concept.

So first, we have the very first public appearance of the adult Jesus. Here He is. Except that, unlike today's attempts at public appearances, there were no major marketing campaigns or advertisements. Jesus simply showed up. The best indication people had that He was coming, besides being repeatedly told about the coming Messiah in the scriptures, was a bug-eating, hair-wearing, desert-dwelling cousin from the other side of the country. Not exactly what I'd consider to be a flashy campaign, if there was a campaign at all. If Jesus did want a campaign, He could have shown up at the temple and start educating people with His massive store of theological knowledge.

But He didn't.

Jesus showed up for Baptism. Now this is interesting, because basic Christian doctrine says that Christ was sinless, yet Christ submits to Baptism. He didn't need to have His sins washed away because He didn't have any to wash away. So why bother? Well, for the same reason that Jesus offered sacrifices at the Temple as a child: Jesus was baptized so that all of the works of the Law would be fulfilled in Him.

He humbles Himself to the same level as all of those Jews who acknowledged that the Law’s training wheels weren’t getting it done. He humiliated Himself – he became the Servant.

Again, keep in mind that Baptism was a very real part of the Jewish faith. It wasn't just invented in the New Testament - it was a Jewish concept and practice that was later used by God as the sign and seal of the New Covenant. The concept, again, was that Baptism was required for new converts to Judaism as part of a purification ritual. For a faithful Jew to be baptized was an act of humiliation, because it acknowledged that they weren't really part of the faith, and that they needed to have their hearts changed at the core - and they responded by being baptized in great numbers.

And here's the Son of God doing the same thing. He's humbling Himself, humiliating Himself by allowing Himself to undergo this purification ritual. He's becoming the lowest servant and fulfilling the works of the Law - all at the same time.

And then Dad shows up.

The unique thing about Jesus' baptism - the thing that didn't happen to the other people - was that the Spirit came down in the form of a dove and a voice from heaven proclaimed Jesus “my beloved Son”. Publicly. John’s baptisms, again, were attended by large groups of people, and Jesus would have been in the presence of people that would have been witnesses to this. People who could have, quite literally, hauled Peter and Mark into court and threatened him with their lives if this hadn’t happened. No one ever did. The gathered witnesses all saw and heard the same thing.

And it's this same thing that give us our picture, a family portrait of the Trinity. We have the Father declaring that this baptizee is not only pleasing to Him, but is, in fact, His Son. To top it off, the Spirit is present "like a dove". In other words: The Godhead is completely, and physically, present at the Baptism of Christ. This is the picture of the Trinity we've been in need of since Genesis 1, and it took Jesus' act of humiliating Himself and fulfilling the requirements of the law to give it to us.

The Messenger - Mark 1:2-8

5minutes — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:39:00 GMT

I'm going to make every effort here to be non-denominational in my study of the following scripture. However, as you well know, I am a Reformed Presbyterian (PCA), and so my own beliefs may filter through.

2As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,

"Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way,

3the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
'Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,'"

Before we go much further, I’d like to stop here for a moment. Mark has chosen to do something very interesting here. While much of Mark, as we have said, is a very kinetic book – it focuses a lot on the actions of Jesus, Mark does take the time to make a connection with his readers and the history of Jesus Christ. Most Christians at the time of the writing of Mark would have come from Judea / Israel, and would have either been Jewish or would have made some connection with Jewish scriptures, since the New Testament had not yet been written – and wouldn’t be completed for another 40 years or so. In other words: the Old Testament WAS the Bible as far as Mark would have been concerned.

Mark’s first action after introducing his purpose in writing this Gospel is to make a connection with 2 prophets: Malachi and Isaiah, which gives us a good idea of exactly who the prophets of Israel were looking for. While the rest of Israel was looking for a literal king or rebel leader to free them from Roman oppression, Malachi was looking for someone different. In fact, looking at the entire verse in Malachi, we see that the messenger was preparing the way for someone who would “suddenly come to his temple”. We’ll see more of this later on in Mark.

And, yes. I'm well aware that the verse above says "Isaiah". There are lots of theories as to why this verse includes "Isaiah" when the verses come from Malachi, and to a lesser extent, Deuteronomy. My favorite is the concept that a well-meaning copyist included it because he knew recognized the part that came from Isaiah, but the fact is: we just don't know. "Isaiah" appears in some older manuscripts and doesn't appear in others. My opinion is that Mark would have been well-aware that his readers were just as picky as the pickiest theologian today, and would have known what parts of this verse came from what books, and would've called him on it.

So what we actually have here is Mark beginning to make the case – he’s beginning to lay out the evidence for the case that is Jesus as the Messiah – as the Christ. He’s reaching back to Isaiah and Malachi (both of whom early Christians would have been familiar with) to prepare his case. He’s laying the foundation. Now, let’s see how that foundation is getting built:

4John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. 6Now John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and wild honey. 7And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Here, we have the very beginning of New Testament action. John the Baptist (or Baptizer, if you’d prefer) is starting to preach what will become a basic Christian doctrine, and one of two elements that all Christians consider to be a sacrament: baptism. Now, there are different theories on the theology and doctrine of baptism that we won’t get into just yet (ranging from dunking vs. sprinkling, paedeobaptism vs. credobaptism, etc.), but the point is this: John started the foundation. He preached a need for repentance of sins, which apparently was hitting people exactly where they lived: “And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” He was preaching something that these people recognized and knew that they needed (it wasn’t because he was a popular, clean-cut, nice-looking guy, what with his camel hair outfit and diet of bugs and honey….). They knew:

A. That there was a law set down by God; and
B. They weren’t following it.

See – John wasn’t really asking Jews just to get wet. Baptism was a real thing in the Jewish faith, and it was taken very, very seriously. While groups like the Essenes baptized themselves daily for purification, most Jews were only baptized upon conversion to Judaism. What John was asking these Jews to do was to lower themselves, humble themselves, to the level of a new convert. He was calling on them to acknowledge that their ability to follow the law hadn’t changed their hearts, and that they were still in need of repentance and of God’s grace – and his listeners responded by coming in droves. Thousands of proud, religious Jews going to be humiliated in front of each other, living, breathing examples of how the law’s training wheels weren’t producing the grace that these people needed.

Now, there are a couple of other things that I’d like to point out...

1. John’s Appearance is actually important. While he was kinda strange walking around in his camel hair and leather belt, John was actually making a reference back to the Old Testament. Back in II Kings, there was a famous prophet who was walking around in camel hair and a leather belt – and nobody recognized him - Elijah. In Malachi, God promised that He would send Elijah before the Day of the Lord. Now, while John the Baptist wasn’t the actual physical Elijah, He was exactly what God promised. He was a prophet who believed that Jehovah was his God (which is what “Elijah” means). He was indeed the prophet before the Day of the Lord. John's appearance was another chunk of evidence that the prophecy of the Christ was about to be fulfilled.

2. Baptism – now’s a good time to address baptism. There are a lot of issues that come in with Baptism, and it’s not going to be easy (or quick) to cover them all. I’m going to give you the basics here, and if you’d like my opinion on the matter, we can discuss it in the forums. Keep in mind: these are Cliff's Notes on the subject - there are many, many other books and scholarly writings that go into much better, much greater detail than I will here.

On methods:

a. Full Immersion: the belief that the Greek terms “bapto” (temporary) and “baptizo” (implying permanence) mean to submerge completely in liquid. This method has historical backing in the Eastern Churches, and has found its way into the modern Baptistic churches. It is usually based in scriptures such as Mark 1 that show Jesus “coming up out of the water”.

b. Pouring / Sprinkling: the belief that these terms also mean “pour” or “sprinkle”, and that baptism takes place upon the ceremonial sprinkling of water. This method has historical backing in the Western Churches, and is commonly practiced by non-Baptistic churches. Scriptures used in favor of this include Acts 8:36, and others that show that these terms may reflect multiple possible definitions.

On who may be baptized:

a. Credobaptism: the belief that only confessing Christians should be baptized. Based on repeated scriptures that say “believe and be baptized”.

b. Paedobaptism: the belief that Baptism should be performed on "covenant children" - children of believers. This is often called “infant baptism”, and is based on scriptures such as Acts 2:38-39 and Acts 16:31ff, among others.

On the salvific / effective nature of Baptism:

a. Baptismal Regeneration: The belief that, under usual circumstances, a person is not fully a Christian until they have been baptized - or (sometimes) have expressed a desire to be baptized. Based on repeated scriptures that indicate that acceptance of the Gospel and Baptism were connected.

b. Baptism as a Sign and Seal of the New Covenant: the belief that a person is a member of the family of God upon conversion regardless of Baptism, and that Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant between the believer and God. Based on many scriptures where circumcision is replaced with Baptism in the NT.

c. Baptism as an Outward Sign of Inward Change: the belief that Baptism is a reflection of the Holy Spirit's action on a person after that person has been saved.

Note: while there is a difference concerning efficacy among the various theologies, I am unaware of any Christian group that considers a refusal to be baptized as an acceptable behavior, and every group I am aware of would seriously question that person's salvation.

Back to Mark. Back to John, the camel-hair-clad, bug-eating baptizer from the desert that was the fulfillment of the prophecies...

Now, if John thought he was the cat’s meow, he didn’t show it. In fact, he actively denied it. John himself said that Someone Else was coming coming whose sandals he not even worthy to touch, who’ll preach the same repentance, but instead of water, He’ll baptize you with something you’ve never even seen…

The sandals comment is very interesting, especially considering how Middle Eastern cultures tend to view shoes: badly. Have you ever heard that showing the bottom of your shoe to someone from the Middle East is a grave, grave insult? Have you ever heard about protests where Middle Easterners threw shoes at people? Ever wonder why? It's because shoes are... well, they're dirty. Sure, they kept your feet protected, but those shoes are just plain nasty... they're just about the dirtiest form of clothing that a human can have, outside of toiletries, and to toss a shoe or show the sole of your foot to a Middle Easterner, such as an Arab or a 1st-Century Jew, is to basically say, "You are utterly beneath me." And yet, John seems to have taken the concept of him being utterly beneath the coming Christ as a place of honor.

Supremacy and Racism: Not the Gospel

5minutes — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:52:00 GMT

The third part to our study of Mark is on the way. Unfortunately, between my computer crashing and major work issues, it's going to be later this week or next before it's done. In the meantime, give a listen to this sermon by Rev. James Mitchell on Racism and the Gospel. It's a big one: 37 MB, but it's well worth it.

http://www.akroaterion.org/audio/Racism-John4.mp3

The Gospel of Mark: In the Beginning

5minutes — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:22:00 GMT

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (ESV)

Mark is one of five Biblical books that talks about beginnings in its first sentence (the others being Genesis, John, Titus, and I John). The author makes several important statements within this single sentence that are both simplistic and foundational.

Mark tells us what we’re going to get: the Gospel. The Greek word translated here is euaggelion (pronounced “yoo-ang-ghel’-ee-on”), from which we get English words like “evangelism”. It literally means “good tidings” or “a reward for good tidings”, and is associated with bringing good news. In fact, a careful look at the Greek (and even the English) of Mark 1 shows that the author doesn’t just consider this “some” good news, but THE good news. arch tou euaggelion - (The) Beginning (of) The Good News. This is a specific, rather than a general statement. Here, in Jesus Christ, we will find the reward – the good tidings we’ve been needing – the point to his entire book.

The second thing Mark tells us is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Now, to us as 21^st Century Christians, this isn’t a huge deal because it’s something we believe from the bottom of our feet to the tip of our head – but Mark is really risking some stuff here. Keep in mind that Mark was written just a couple of decades after the crucifixion of Christ. Christianity is kicking up nicely around the Roman Empire, and its believers are beginning to suffer real persecution at the hands of those in charge – mostly from the Jews.

And there’s the problem. Mark is proudly declaring in the first sentence of his Gospel that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (υιου θεου – uiou theou – immediate offspring of God). It is exactly this kind of claim that kept Jesus in constant danger from the Jewish leaders, because the claim that you were the Son of God – and thus, God Himself, was absolutely blasphemous to them, and deserving of death. By making this claim, Mark is doing more than something that a bad mystery writer and a good lawyer would do: giving away the ending to his book at the very beginning – he’s putting his life at risk.

Keep in mind: this Gospel probably comes from the mouth of Peter. So putting your life at risk by putting this claim on paper is quite a change from the guy running away from Christ’s trial on his way to deny Christ as much as he could before the rooster crowed.

In fact, if we carefully consider the verse, Peter (and Mark) might as well have said, “I believe that what I am about to tell you is the absolute and true story of the Good News about Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God – something I believe so strongly that not only am I willing to put my life at risk by speaking it, but I’m willing to put this on paper so that if I’m brought up before a court, I have no recourse against a conviction and death sentence by that court”.

What an awesome picture of God’s grace on a man’s life. Peter had known Christ and denied Him, but God saw fit to redeem his falling away to the point where Peter now put his faith on paper, risking his life to share the truth of the Gospel: Jesus Christ. And, sure enough, in the mid 60’s AD, Peter would indeed pay with his life for his beliefs, when he was crucified. Mark also suffered death for his beliefs around the same time when he was dragged to death through the streets of Alexandria behind horses.

All this for a simple statement: This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The Gospel of Mark: Why?

5minutes — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:50:00 GMT

Simply put, Mark is the basic, simple Gospel. In terms of timeline, Mark may not have been the earliest person to write about Jesus, but he was the first person to compile and publish those writings into a work that was ultimately accepted by the church, including the living Disciples and others who knew Christ, as the Gospel (Matthew and Luke were probably being written around the same time – they all probably came out within 5-10 years of each other).

To be certain, there are other claims to other works being “first” – mostly by groups like the Gnostics and other writers of pseudopigraphical (aka “False Writings”) works. However, not only have none of those claims have ever been substantiated, there are large bodies of evidence that tell us that the vast majority of these claims of being “first” are simply not true, and further bodies of evidence to indicate that the stories and sayings in these works are equally fictitious.

Mark, however, is different. Again, Mark is a basic Gospel – good news, with very little in terms of the later doctrines or dogmas that came about from later works by Paul, James, Peter, John, and others. Most of what you see is Jesus in action – living His daily life. This is the historical, physical, everyday Christ.

There are always people who make claims that books of the Bible were much later than they actually were, but most of these claims are simply attempts by secularists to minimize the effect of significance of God’s active involvement in the formation of scripture. The timing and authorship of Mark are widely regarded by most conservative scholars to have been within 15-35 years of Jesus’ crucifixion, and was probably a complete, well-read Gospel by 65 AD or so (some dates go earlier, some later). This means that by the time Peter and Paul died in the mid-to-late 60’s AD, the Gospel of Mark would have already been a well-known work to them and the other living disciples of Jesus – who all seem to have accepted Mark’s Gospel as, well… Gospel.

The writer – that it, the person to have set everything down on paper - is accepted to have been a guy named “Mark”. The traditional belief is that “Mark” is “John Mark”, mentioned in Acts 12, 13 (as “John”), and 15 (as “Mark”). He’s also mentioned in Colossians, Philemon, 2 Timothy, and 1 Peter. This is the same John Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas on Paul’s first missionary journey, and then went with Barnabas to Cyprus after the “big split” between Barnabas and Paul, as Barnabas was Mark’s cousin (Col 4:10). After the missionary journeys, Mark became Peter’s assistant (I Peter 5:13).

Now, while the Gospel itself doesn’t specifically say, “I, Mark, wrote this Gospel”, it was understood by the church in the 2nd Century, just a few years after the Gospel was published, to have been based on Peter’s recollections which Mark then compiled. This would explain why Mark lacks some events found in other Gospels, such as Christ’s birth: Peter wasn’t around for those events, but he was certainly around for his own calling and the events surrounding John the Baptist’s ministry and would have been aware of Jesus’ baptism.

Mark is one of the three synoptic Gospels, meaning that it shares a lot in common with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (John is its own category). There are many theories as to why: one theory is that Mark was a source for some of the material found in those Gospels, and was used as a foundation for the Gospels that would eventually be written for specific groups of people – Matthew for the Jews and Luke for the Gentiles. There are other theories, including one that all three were developed independently. However they ended up, whatever way the three synoptics were assembled, to quote my friend Michael Spencer, Mark’s ultimate purpose was to introduce Jesus to a world that did not know Him and already misunderstood Him.

This is why we will study Mark: it is the beginning of the Gospel.

The Gap Must Be Bridged

5minutes — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:19:00 GMT

We've spent quite a while talking about the downside of reality: our fallenness and the results of our fallenness. We now know that we are completely and totally seperated from God because of a problem that isn't merely bad behavior, but because of a near-genetic-level infection that corrupts us completely to the core, and corrupts the world around us. We know that this separation is huge and insurmountable by our own effort.

It is not, however, insurmountable to God. He has sent us His Son.

His Only Son.

Let's keep that in mind this Christmas.

Damned if We Don't

5minutes — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:02:00 GMT

One of the starting points in understanding the need for the Gospel is in understanding the reality of what happens if someone rejects the Gospel, because if we don't know where we're going, then we have no reason to change our course. And it's an unfortunate doctrine we have to discuss, because it's unpleasant in every possible way.

The reality of Hell is one of the things Christ repeatedly spoke about. Many of His parables tell us about people being cast into "outer darkness" and "weeping and gnashing of teeth". Perhaps the strongest words on the subject come from the parable of the sheep and the goats, with the goats going into eternal punishment and the sheep going into eternal life.

At this point is where we get introduced to universalists.

Let me say this clearly: universalism is not Christianity. Anyone claiming to be a Christian universalist is deceiving themselves as much as a person who claims to be both a poached egg and a human being. These simply are not compatible belief systems. Universalism ultimately teaches that Christ's sacrifice was as unnecessary as your need to accept the Gospel because you're going to Heaven, no matter what you believe.

What a hopeful belief system! If only it were true.

Seriously. I wish it were. I wish that scripture taught that everyone would end up in Heaven in the end. The thought of someone spending eternity seperated from God is a sickening thought to someone who understands the concept of Hell. No one would ever celebrate someone ending up in a place describe by scripture as a burning, stinking garbage heap that never extinguishes, where the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever. What a horrible concept Hell is.

Unfortunately, it's also a very real, very true concept - and it's that concept that should drive us to preach the Gospel. Sure, we can talk about Jesus loving us, but let's be honest: we can get love elsewhere. We can get our needs met elsewhere. We can get everything we could possibly need elsewhere, whether or not we're Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, or what have you.

But we can't get salvation. We can't get Grace. We can't get the Gospel. These are the things that we so desperately need, and these are the things that we must be driven to. This is why Hell is so important to the Christian - not so that we can condemn people we don't like there, but so that the reality of it will drive us to understand the consequences of someone's decision to reject Christ, so that we will be emboldened to evangelize, preach, and proclaim Jesus Christ crucified and risen again.

Sin Is Not The Problem - Sin Is

5minutes — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:50:00 GMT

Before we talk much more about grace, we need to return to the Fall and to that which seperates us from God. It is undestanding this situation that is critical to us as Christians in understanding our seperation from God, the condtion of the Earth and the things in it, and our relationships with both God and other people. Without understanding this seperation and its cause, we will continue to fall into the trap of believing that God is an action-reaction creature whose primary job is to punish us for our infractions, rather than a Holy God Who wants to free us from the stranglehold that Sin has on our lives.

One of the biggest problems we face as Christians is a tendency to overfocus on individual sins. How many times have you heard someone on TV tearing down someone else because that person had committed a sin? Worse yet, how many times have you heard that a certain group of people is going to hell because they collectively participate in a particular sin? Even worse is when they pull out a Bible and continue to condemn the target of their animosity by using out-of-context scriptures to "prove" their point (usually only proving that they've missed the entirety of scripture and the Gospel).

But it is critical for us to understand that these individual acts of bad behavior are merely symptoms of the bigger problem. When Paul said in Romans that "by one man did sin enter the world", he spoke of a general condition, not a tendency to be bad little children. He spoke of a disease of Sin that rots us from the inside and destroys everything and everyone around us. It is this condition that came about from the Fall.

This does not, however, diminish our need to clean up our behavior. Bad behavior is still exactly that: bad. For us to preach a message that we can "get saved" and then continue our bad behavior shows a complete misunderstanding of both salvation and of Sin. By continuing our bad behavior, we show that we are still affected by the Fall and that we're still driven by Sin.

At the same time, we need to remember that those of us that are under the Blood of Christ also have the same ability to sin. We're still capable of behaving badly. We're still capable of performing acts of utter reprehension. Being Christian does not stop us from being sinners - it merely focuses our attention on the damage Sin and sins both do in our lives, our relationship with God, and our relationships with others. We seek forgiveness for our individual sins, and yet we are confident that Christ has given us victory over Sin, and it is this Sin that we need to keep in mind when we remember ourselves that Christ has redeemed us, because it is then that we realize that our sins are the symptoms of the Sin disease that is ripping us apart from the inside, the Sin that entered the world and destroyed everything in it through the Fall. When we focus our attention on the root problem, our attention on ourselves and others switches from changing behaviors to changing hearts.

It is in this atmosphere that my favorite quote of all time enters the picture. It is a quote from Dr. Martin Luther to his friend Philip Melancthon, in which Dr. Marty tries to explain the concept of Grace at its deepest. It's a quote that changes my life and my persepective of Sin - and my understanding of how God responds to sin - and how I should respond to Sin. This week, I'm going to leave you with this quote, whcih we'll cover in the next blog. Give it some thought and prayer...

From Dr. Marty to Phil M:

“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness... It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner."

Grace in Las Vegas

5minutes — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:41:00 GMT

One of the toughest concepts that we Christians face is the concept of Grace. As human beings, we are currency-based creatures. From the time we're small, we're well aware of the concept of what's "mine" and what's "yours" and that to get what's "yours", we must give you something in return. Even as much as we like to talk about how parents love their children unconditionally, we know it's not the truth. There's times when the best of mothers want to toss their screaming newborn out the window and when the most marvelous of fathers want to whack their kids with a bat. We don't like to admit it, but we are, in fact, human.

And being human is the primary problem. Again, we're currency-based - we exchange money for goods at the store. We trade CD's. While sophists and pseudointellectuals like to glorify the wonders of socialism and communism, there's a reason that a society based entirely on everyone sharing everything has never worked, and will never work in this poor world. Remember what we learned about the Fall last time: its effects were TOTAL, and that also includes our economic systems.

And yet, God does not work on such human systems. For no other reason that He wanted to, He has chosen to give us Grace. It's actually a scary concept. In fact, I would wager that the vast majority of people on the planet are repelled by the concept of grace. Our first thought is, "What's the catch" - because while we may not admit it out loud, at our core, we're well aware of the cost and value of something, and when we're offered something for nothing, we usually know that there is a cost somewhere along the line.

And yet, here it stands: offered to us. Truly unconditional.

It is into this picture that I bring an episode of "CSI". Yes, THAT CSI - the one in Las Vegas. The one without the fashion-model posing by David Caruso. The one with William Petersen as Gil Grissom, bug scientist extraordinaire. In a recent 2-part episode, "A Bullet Runs Through It", there is a large shoot-out between gang members and police officers. In the course of the shootout, a young boy and a police officer are both shot (the officer is killed). In the aftermath, there are two beautiful scenes that illustrate two different takes on salvation.

The first take I'd like to focus on is Gil Grissom's. He is the eternal skeptic, and although his former Christian faith has made for some interesting discussion over the course of the series, he remains, at his core, agnostic. He is given the responsibility to talk to the public at a community meeting about the evidence and give his scientific opinion of what has happened. While he peppers his speech to the gathered people with phrases like "God's House", his speech centers around nothing more than the evidence. At the end, the boy's father asks him to tell him who shot his son, and Grissom tells him that his boy was shot by a gang member. The father is devestated - as he should be, because at its core, Grissom's speech illustrates the single biggest problem with a science-based belief system, and ultimately with a currency-based soteriology: ultimately it is hopeless. It provides no relief - even when preached in "God's House" - to people who are in desperate need of more than scientific answers and an exchange of goods.

Ultimately, hopeless.

Even more telling is Grissom's lack of answers for Det. Sofia Curtis, who believes herself to be responsible for the police officer who was killed. When she expresses her sadness and hopelessness, Grissom has nothing to offer. Sofia cannot turn anywhere for help, because she's not allowed to speak to another officer - and this includes her own mother. Ultimately, there is nothing for Sofia other than people reminding her of rules and regulations that give her no comfort, nowhere to turn, and no hope. It is a perfect example of a works-based gospel that requires this currency exchange of behavior or rite in exchange for absolution - and it is a complete and utter vacuum.

Let us compare and contrast this with the final scene. Over the course of the program, we discover that the police officer was shot and killed - accidentally - by another police officer, Detective Jim Brass. Jim's an interesting character: he's a short-tempered alcoholic hero cop whose own daughter refuses to have anything to do with him. When the news comes down, he's told that he was the one who did it. He doesn't make any deals. He knows what story the evidence tells, and he knows that he is responsible for the death of an innocent man. He is guilty without doubt or question.

In the final scene, he attends the officer's funeral. The reaction from those in attendence is perfectly understandable: he has committed the ultimate sin in their mind - he has carelessly killed his brother in arms. When he sits down, the other officers in attendence get up and move as far away from him as possible. One officer speaks to him, if only to admonish him for even daring to show up. Brass is without recourse, when the time arrives: his judge enters the room - the dead officer's wife, Tracy. Brass arises and approaches her. He stutters, but his sorrow is obvious and his guilt is only invisible to the blind. She hold up her hands....

And she hugs him. She holds him. She comforts him. Not a weak, emotionless "that's okay" hug, but a hold-on-for-dear-life bear hug.

What a wonderful picture of the Grace that God grants us in Christ! There is no earthly reason for Det. Brass to be hugged, forgiven, welcomed, or tolerated -and yet this woman chooses to express a level of undeserved, unrestricted, unconditional, irresistable Grace. There are no strings. There is no logic. There is hope. There is healing. There is love. It cost her the most precious person in her life, but that person's death enabled her to share this Grace freely to a man who couldn't even mutter the words "I'm sorry".

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the Gospel... that we are guilty and hopeless and have no business even being in the presence of God, and yet His Grace makes us able, forgives us, and shows us the Love that is unexpected, uninvited, and so desperately needed to heal our hearts.

The Space In Between Us

5minutes — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:40:00 GMT

If I wanted to go somewhere, I'd need to know several things, first and foremost of which is "where in the world am I?" The same is true with the Gospel... we need to know where we are to begin the journey to the Cross. And that's where the bad news starts... where we are isn't a nice place, and it all comes back to a single event.

It all begins in Genesis. Now, while there are tons of theories about the process of creation - theories that I categorically refuse to get into pointless debates over, the primary thing that seems to be important about the first chapters of Genesis is that it paints a picture of Who God is, what our world is supposed to be like, and what happened to send it down the tubes. God, in these first few chapters, is Creator, Father, Lawgiver, Judge, and Gracious, all in one. Our world is, for lack of a better word, perfect. And us human beings are in a perfect relationship with God and the world around us. We are caretakers and servants of a God that we delight to serve in a world that is beautiful and wonderful beyond measure.

So what happened?

Simply put: we screwed up. Adam and Eve chose Sin over Beauty, and in doing so, ensured that it was Sin that ruled our world. The effect of their Fall was total - it devestated the world around us and ruined our relationship with God, who cannot look upon Sin. It was so complete that it didn't just ruin Adam, Eve, and the critters in the garden - it ruined the entire planet. Earth became a hopeless mess that had been completely seperated from the God that loved it so much (John 3:16).

Worse yet, it condemned us all to a spiritual death (Romans 7:9-13) and ensured that we were absolutely incapable of turning back on our own In fact, Sin helped to ensure that not only are we incapable, but that we are in active rebellion against God... it's not just that we're not God-focused or that we're just slightly off-kilter - we are in active, total, and complete antipathy towards God. We are completely and totally helpless and hopeless on our own.

Fortunately, we're not on our own.

The Gospel

5minutes — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:32:00 GMT

The problem is obvious: the world is a dark, screwed-up place. Everywhere we look, we see death, destruction, anger, and hopelessness. We keep writing stories and watching movies about worlds that are so much better than ours because we know, in our bones, that this world is not what it should be.

Worse - we know that we're just as screwed up as the rest of the world. The Bible tells us that no one is righteous - no one has the right to stand up and set themselves up as an example of being holy. It also tells us that God expects us to be holy, and that those of us who aren't holy will be thrown out of His presence, sent to be seperated from Him forever.

It sounds like we're screwed. There's no way we can do it. We're too messed up. We can't impress God with our good behavior because even our best behavior is like a pile of used, nasty, filthy rags. We just can't do it.

But He can. He did. That's the Good News - that God loves us so much that He sent Jesus to pay the price for us - a price we couldn't even begin to pay. He calls us, and all He asks in return is that we repent and believe on Him. The Bible describes Jesus as knocking on the door of our hearts, and a good way for us to start repenting and believing is by praying and believing a simple prayer that says "Jesus, I ask you to forgive me of my sins. I'd like You to come into my heart and save me." This is a good first step.

It's not an easy process - in fact, it'll take the rest of your life. There will be times when you find it hard to believe. There will be times that your friends laugh at you and abandon you. There will be times that you wonder if it all really matters. But it does matter. God has and will never abandon you. The message is simple: the Bible tells us that those who believe on Jesus will be saved.

Repent and believe in Him. This is the Gospel.