Alpha-Omega

Insights From a New Dad – A Sermon

by

It was my first Fathers Day as a Dad, and I had the opportunity to preach at First United Methodist in Wichita Falls, Texas on June 20, 2010. I felt that much of what I had experienced as a new dad paralleled much of what was happening at the time.  Fathers Day weekend, two years later, not much has changed, so I thought I’d share this sermon again. The audio is just the sermon. The video includes my children’s sermon from the same day.

The Scripture text that was inspiration for this sermon is Matthew 18:

1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 He called a child, whom he put among them, 3 and said, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

Faith In or Faith Of?

by

Much of modern Christianity is based around the idea that one must have “faith IN Jesus Christ” to have “salvation.” More often than not, this leads to, “There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ” – which makes me shudder.

I ask the question, where does one get this idea that one must have faith in Christ to have salvation? Well, the easy answer is, “The Bible says so.” Does it really?

Let’s look at a typical example in Scripture that is often used to support the idea of faith IN Christ:

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith IN Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith IN Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. 17 But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith IN the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. (Galatians 2, NRSV, emphasis mine)

WOW! Look at all that “evidence” – or is it evidence? Let us take a look at the footnotes found in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible. In each of the three instances above, many scholars would translate that “the faith OF (not in) Christ.” Let’s look at the entire passage with this translation:

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through THE FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by THE FAITH OF CHRIST, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. 17 But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by THE FAITH OF THE SON OF GOD, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. (Galatians 2, NRSV, emphasis mine to highlight the footnote additions)

What’s the difference? Well, faith IN Christ easily becomes an intellectual thing. “I believe in Christ, or I have faith in Christ.” We easily translate that into meaning faith IN Christ, and no other, is necessary for salvation.

How different is that when we accept the translation that many scholars believe is more “literal,” that we should have the faith OF Christ? How different would our lives be if we had the faith OF Christ and realized that there is nothing that can happen to us in this world (even crucifixion) that God cannot help us through? Christ could see that even though he’d rather the “cup be removed from him,” that God was going to continue to work and inspire others to carry on the work he started. Whether one believes in a literal resurrection of Christ or not, one can see the resurrection of “the Way” after all the disciples scattered at the first sign of trouble.

For me, having faith IN Christ is not very helpful. It is only an intellectual statement. I wonder, though, how can it be that I can have faith IN Christ when, according to verse 20, Christ lives IN me? If we do allow Christ to live in us, whether we have faith IN Christ or not, aren’t we allowing ourselves to have the faith OF Christ? Doesn’t the faith OF Christ lead us to be more like Christ so that we might “live to God” (Galatians 2:19). If non-Christians have the faith OF Christ, aren’t they also justified or have salvation?

Why don’t we try to have the faith OF Christ? All too often, I think we are simply afraid to have the faith OF Christ, which is to have no faith at all. We’re afraid where it might lead us. Look at Jesus. Look at the early martyrs. Look at Gandhi (who, by the way, “religiously” studied the Sermon on the Mount). Look at Martin Luther King, Jr. They all died living the faith OF Christ.

Let’s live to God. Let’s follow the leading of the faith OF Christ. Remember, it might be Friday, but Sunday’s coming. (Get it… Jesus is said to have died on Good Friday and was resurrected on Easter Sunday – what do we have to fear except fear itself).

(Originally posted at http://theology-of-t-roy.blogspot.com/2005/06/faith-in-or-faith-of.html on June 2, 2005)

Religion & Politics Don’t Mix?

by

Really? Are you sure?

I have heard this phrase all my life, and until very recently, I even believed it – until I did a closer study of Scripture.

Let’s think about the Exodus. This is about political salvation of the “nation” of Israel – not personal salvation. Slavery is a political issue when it is mandated by the government, which it was in this story. As the story goes, God provided salvation from a political government’s oppression. When we look closely at the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, we can see that the law we are told God gives to Moses is a set of laws to guide the “nation” of Israel. “Thou shalt not murder,” is no different than the political law provided by the government of the United States today.

When we look at Joshua, we see the Israelite nation claiming the promised land for their own political nation. Judges shows a nation trying to make it under the law of Moses without a human king, and repeatedly, we are told that God has to come rescue the Israelites from political oppression of other nations through a judge. 1 & 2 Samuel shows us the transition from the system of judges with God ruling the nation to having an earthly king – first Saul, then David, and so on. 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles really do not focus on individual people but on the history of the kings of both Israel (the northern kingdom) and Judah (the southern kingdom). Occasionally, we’ll see the entrance of a prophet, such as Elijah or Elisha, but their main purpose is to reform the king, the political nation and not the people of the nation.

Many of the psalms are about political need and political conquest, not just personal needs. The prophets are focused, again, on reforming wayward kings who have led the nation into dire straits. The hope is to bring the nation out of its slump and / or exile to be a strong political nation again.

Many will say, “Yeah, but that’s the Old Testament. It’s different in the New Testament.” Well, first of all, are these people saying that the Old Testament is not inspired? Why not just throw it out then? Second of all, we must never forget that Jesus was called the “Messiah” or “Christ,” the anointed one to redeem the NATION of Israel!

We must remember that “Messiah” literally means “anointed one.” Therefore, every political king that ever sat on the throne of Israel or Judah was a “messiah” because each one was “anointed.” If Jesus was the Messiah, we cannot overlook these political connotations that come with the title!

1 Thessalonians is probably the oldest New Testament writing we have, and it probably comes from the hand of the Apostle Paul. Let’s look at the first verse of this book:

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace. (NRSV, emphasis added)

We do not realize it today, but “Lord” is a political term on top of being a religious term. It comes from the Greek word kyrios. Caesar Augustus had brought peace to Rome following the civil wars that ensued after the assasination of Julius Caesar. From that time on, emperors of Rome were considered to be gods! One of the titles for these emperors (who were understood to be gods) was kyrios, lord. By Paul calling Jesus, “Lord,” Paul is making a political, as well as a religious, statement!

As much as we try to deny it, Jesus was a political figure and some of his concerns were political. For example, let’s look at a passage from the sermon on the mount:

“You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42, NRSV)

Jesus’ first statement, “turn the other cheek,” has to do with one’s social status in the world. In 1st century Judaism, the left hand was considered unclean and could only be used for activities such as wiping oneself. Therefore, in order for someone to hit me on the right cheek, that person MUST back-hand me with the right, because they cannot use the left hand! That is a sign of derision saying, “I’m better than you!” By allowing someone to, then, strike me on the left cheek, I am forcing that person to strike me as an equal. I am declaring that in God’s eyes, I am an equal to this person who thinks they are better than me. Some will say, “That’s not very political.” True, but let’s look at the next two statements.

“If someone wants to sue you. . . . ” This is a part of the political process allowed by the government. Jesus’ response to this statement is to “give them your cloak as well.” Why? In Jewish society of the 1st century, it was deemed to be worse to cause someone’s nakedness or to see someone’s nakedness than be naked. Therefore, Jesus is inviting his hearers to “work the political system” to show one’s value and worth!

Similarly, “If someone forces you to go one mile, go also the second!” This, also, has to do with a political situation of the 1st century. Per Roman rule, Roman soldiers could force anyone in the kingdom to carry their pack for one mile, but ONLY one mile. They could be punished for having someone carry it farther than that. Thus, Jesus is, again, asking his hearers to “work the political system.” Imagine this picture: A soldier forces a Jewish peasant to carry is pack one mile. After one mile, the peasant keeps going. Knowing that he could be punished, this Roman soldier (who is deemed to be more important than this peasant) has to BEG the lowly peasant to give up the pack. This is known today as “passive resistance.” This same type of political resistance has been employed by Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr.!

We must also not forget one of the most common phrases on the lips of Jesus: the kingdom of God / heaven. He doesn’t talk about the family of God or the people of God.  He talks about the KINGDOM of God, and “kingdom” is a political term.  In these instances, Jesus is asking us to choose between the kingdoms of this world and the kingdom of God. Where does our allegiance really lie? Are we really seeking the furtherance of the kingdom of God or our own kingdoms?

When we really think about it, it is this question that led to the Jewish leaders bringing Jesus before Pilate for sentencing. These leaders used the issue of Jesus calling for proper allegiance to God above Caesar to encourage Pilate to sentence him to death, even if they do stretch the story a bit:

Then the assembly rose as a body and brought Jesus before Pilate. They began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king.” (Luke 23:1-2, NRSV)

Yes, religion and politics do not mix when one’s goal is to further the earthly kingdom and not God’s kingdom. Yet, if we are truly seeking to be active citizens of God’s kingdom, we will properly use politics and other means to further that kingdom. When we are truly member of God’s kingdom, politics become a good and useful thing – not a bad thing!

(Originally posted at http://theology-of-t-roy.blogspot.com/2005/04/religion-and-politics-dont-mix.html on April 12, 2005)