Jesus as "The Way"

Most people are not offended if I tell them that Jesus is "my" way. Our culture is big on "live-and-let-live." However, if my "way"--in other words, if my understanding--in any way seems to call into question another's "way," then I'd better look out! The intolerance of tolerant people for intolerance is extreme!

So, the rub doesn't come when I say that Jesus is "my way"; it's when I say that Jesus is "the way." Indeed, the reaction to that slight modification is so vociferous that many Christians no longer will go there. They don't want to offend, so they steer clear of something that so obviously causes offense.

That approach doesn't work for me, though. The reason is simple. I'm not the one who made the claim about Jesus in the first place. He did. He said, "I am the way and the truth and the life" (John 14:6). So when I say Jesus is "the way" rather than just "my way," I am echoing him.

I understand why people get upset when I say Jesus is "the way." To them it sounds as if I'm unwilling to consider or even look at other ways. They may assume I'm attacking "their way(s)" or their belief systems, so I'm not surprised that when I say "Jesus is the way," I am accused of arrogance. But does it sound arrogant when Jesus says it?

After all, Jesus claimed that he came "to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). And, on the night before his death, he asked the Father to achieve salvation in some other way if possible; yet, "not my will, but Yours be done" (Luke 22:42). If, after begging for another way, Jesus willingly died on the Cross, is it arrogant for him to say, "I am the way"? When someone argues that there is another way, isn't s/he implying that Jesus' crucifixion was unnecessary?

So, when conversing with a skeptical acquaintance about spiritual things, I do not begin with the idea that Jesus is the only way. After all, I don't want to end the conversation before it begins. However, if it comes up, I can't back away from it. I try to articulate my understanding as sensitively as possible, but, in the end, it is more important that I be honest than that I be non-offensive. I owe the other person that. I owe Jesus that.

JOSH

Did you see the nice article about Josh Pounders in last week's Valley-Times? In case you missed it, here it is (minus the oh-so-good photo) . . .

First Baptist minister of music returns home
By Ponta Abadi
The Beaverton Valley Times, Oct 16, 2008

Josh Pounders, the new minister of music and worship at First Baptist Church of Beaverton, left for awhile, but has returned to his hometown church. “I always knew I would come back,” he said.

Pounders, 29, has been involved with music for most of his life. “I started singing when I was 3,” he laughs. Becoming more serious about music in junior high school, Pounders went on to Ouachita Baptist University to study music education. He said he knew he wanted to teach music in either in a public school or in a church.

In 2003, Pounders and his wife, Lindsey, moved back to the Northwest and he continued working closely with churches until September of last year when he finally returned to his hometown of Beaverton. “It had been about eight years; a lot of things had changed,” Pounders recalls. “Beaverton has grown, the church has grown.”

Then in January of this year, Pounders joined the First Baptist Church of Beaverton. When the worship pastor position became open at his church, Pounders was encouraged to apply for the job.

In part, the church’s reputation for community involvement made him excited to be back. “That’s the type of church I want to be a part of,” he said.

Pounders hopes to continue the great amount of music already incorporated into worship time. “Music plays such an extremely important role in allowing the Holy Spirit to communicate to the people,” he says.
Pounders also hopes to expand beyond music and preaching to involve more people and their talents.

A few things that have not changed, Pounders notes, are “the desire of our church to be family-friendly,” and the church “using music and worship as an opportunity to share Jesus Christ.”

He and his wife live in the Beaverton area with their two young daughters Lily, 3½, and Jordyn, 2 this Halloween. Looking to the future, Pounders says, “I’m excited about reconnecting with old family and friends and continuing to meet new members of the community.”

World Religions and Birthday Cards

Yesterday my wife, Susie, had a birthday. Today I preached on another Big Question, "Don't all religions teach the same thing(s)?"

They don't, and I want to use a birthday card to demonstrate it. The front of the card has the following "religious groupings" and a saying for each one about the issue of "fairness."

Protestantism: All’s fair in love and war.

Judaism: Nothing is fair.

Existentialism: Fairness is nothing.

Catholicism: It only seems fair when I lose.

Hippi-ism: Do you know the way to Scarborough Fair?

T.V. Evangelism: Send us your money. We’ll decide what’s fair.

Hinduism: You'll get yours next time around.

Zen Buddhism: What is fair?

Taoism: Fair is fair.

The punch line, on the next page, is: Birthdayism: Have a lovely birthday--it's only fair!

I like this card. Even though it slightly caricatures some of these religions, it's humorous because there is a certain amount of truth in each statement.

All religions don't teach the same thing. If you think they do, "send me your money, and I'll decide what's fair." Then I can buy Susie a more extravagant birthday gift!

I know . . . that wouldn't be fair, would it?

Elvis Is Alive!

I am fascinated and frustrated by the attention and success Dan Brown (The Da Vinci Code) and other Bible "conspiracy theorists" have had in undermining people's faith in the Bible's portrayal of Jesus. They have almost as much credibility as the "Elvis is alive" crowd! (For those who want to read the pros and cons on this subject, I suggest starting with wikipedia's article entitled "Elvis Presley Phenomenon.") People are free to believe what they want, of course, but believing it doesn't make it right. I'm not concerned about whether people believe Elvis is alive or not. However, in the case of Jesus and his identity, issues of salvation and eternity are at stake. You don't want to be wrong about!

In his new book, The Case for the Real Jesus, Lee Strobel records his conversations with New Testament scholar Craig Evans concerning the various pseudo-gospels -- the Gospel of Thomas, the Secret Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of Judas. (This is the first chapter of the book, and then he deals with other specific challenges.) They individually evaluate each of these pseudo-gospels utilizing the same criteria I mentioned in my previous post.

Some people undoubtedly will cite the work of the Jesus Seminar as sufficient reason for adjusting our view of Jesus' life and work. However, before buying into the false reasoning of this group, I suggest reading Luke Timothy Johson's critique of their work, The Real Jesus. Johnson is the Woodruff Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Candler School of Theology, Emory University. Incidentally, no one in the academic world would consider Emory to be a "conservative" institution. However, Johnson's evaluation is thorough and incisive, and I cannot do a better job.

My point is simple. When a person or group of persons seek to call a prevailing idea or viewpoint into question--especially something that most people have considered settled for a long time--they should bear the burden of proof. That applies to Elvis -- and to Jesus. One is alive, and the other isn't! I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.

Why Should I Trust What the Bible Has to Say?

This morning I made the point that for many people this "Big Question" is actually a series of "smaller" questions: "How do I know the text hasn't been changed?" "Why should I trust the early Church's decision about what books should be included in the Bible?" And even, "Why should I believe the stories that I find in the Bible?"

In addressing the second of these smaller questions--"why should I trust the early Church's decision about the books that were included"--I listed three criteria used by followers of Christ to determine whether a book would be included in the New Testament. I then showed why a book like the Gospel of Thomas was excluded.

The wikipedia article about the Gospel of Thomas gives a detailed and objective summary of the arguments. First, it quotes Princeton Bible scholar Bruce Metzger as saying, "Although the fringes of the emerging canon remained unsettled for generations, a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained among the very diverse and scattered congregations of believers not only throughout the Mediterranean world, but also over an area extending from Britain to Mesopotamia."

The article then goes on to say: "the Gospel of Thomas may have been excluded from the canon of the New Testament because it was believed:

1. not to have been written close to the time of Jesus;
2. not to have been written by apostolic authority or that it was forged in Thomas' name;
3. not to have been used by multiple churches over a wide geographic range; and/or
4. that it was heretical or unorthodox."

(Those who were present this morning, will recognize that I used these same criteria even though I had not read this wikipedia article until this evening.)

Although I did a reasonable job of describing the Gospel of Thomas, I did a poor job of paraphrasing its last logion (verse). For your personal edification and knowledge, here it is:

114 Simon Peter said to them, "Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "Look, I shall guide her to make her male, so that she may become a living spirit resem-bling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter heaven's kingdom."

Here is another of my favorite verses from this book:

105 Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore."

How about one more?

53 His followers said to him, "Is circumcision useful or not?" He said to them, "If it were useful, children's fathers would produce them already circumcised from their mothers. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become valuable in every respect."

Now, having a read a few of these verses for yourself, what do you think -- did the Early Church make a wise choice in omitting the Gospel of Thomas? Yeah, that's what I thought too!

The Problem of Evil, Suffering, and Pain

This was the topic of my message this Sunday morning, and I promised to explore this subject on my blog this week. Here goes. . .

Too many people want simplistic answers to what actually is a very complex problem. On several occasions I have had someone ask, "What did I do to deserve" this awful thing that has happened to me? Their apriori assumption is that pain and suffering always result from their personal action...but that's not the case. Theologian Mordecai Kaplan used to say, "Expecting nothing bad to happen to you because you're a good person is like expecting the bull not to charge you because you're a vegetarian."

There are a variety of reasons that we may experience evil, suffering, and pain. Cause-and-effect is one possibility. Someone embezzles money; an audit is done; they are arrested, charged with the crime, pronounced guilty, and put into jail. Cause-and-effect. That makes sense to us.

But what happens when an innocent person is arrested, found guilty, and sentenced to a jail term? Is that person paying for some less obvious sins? Or is s/he simply a victim of injustice?

Can we answer that question without access to a lot more information? Many times we will not be able to determine the reason for an individual's pain and suffering. What we can know is that God always is prepared to use our suffering to His glory and for our good! Every follower of Jesus should memorize Romans 8:28: "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."

When, in the midst of suffering--especially in the midst of "unjust suffering"--we submit ourselves to God, the Lord will develop our character (Rom. 5:3-5), will teach us our need of Him (2 Cor. 12:9-10), and will draw non-believers to the gospel (Phil. 1:12-14). Jesus' death on the Cross was not "fair," but through it God opened the door of salvation to all (Rom. 5:6-11).

I think Matt Redman's song says it well:

Blessed be your name
On the road marked with suffering
Though there's pain in the offering
Blessed be your name.

Every blessing you pour out,
I turn back to praise
When the darkness closes in, Lord
Still I will say...

Blessed be the name of the Lord
Blessed be your name
Blessed be the name of the Lord
Blessed be your glorious name.

Faster Than Grace

What does it mean "to go faster than grace"?

The phrase comes from a letter written by Nicholas Hermann, who later became known as "Lawrence of the Resurrection" or, more popularly, as "Brother Lawrence." After serving as a soldier in the Thirty Years War, he became a lay member of a Carmelite community in Paris in 1651. This was his home for the remaining forty years of his life, and he spent his days in the kitchen cooking, washing dishes, and cleaning.

We would know nothing about Brother Lawrence had his life of simple prayer and joy not come to the attention of an official on the staff of the cardinal of Paris. This man, M. de Beaufort, interviewed Brother Lawrence on four occasions, and, after his death, these conversations and sixteen of his letters were published under the title The Practice of the Presence of God.

In one of these letters, he warned of a woman who "wants to go faster than grace. One does not become holy all at once." He was right, of course. We live in a world that demands instant results, but that is not how holiness develops in our lives.

For example, take some sort of habitual sin that we desire to overcome. Most of us think that by praying, "I'll never do it again!" we can somehow overcome years of failure by simply strengthening our resolve. True holiness, though, does not focus on the sin and our efforts to forsake it. Rather, our goal should be drawing our hearts closer to God. As we become more acutely aware of God's love and as we "practice the presence of God," our desire for the sin progressively dies. It is like a plant that never gets watered, but it takes time for that to happen; it requires more than a day. And, even when we think the habitual sin has finally been conquered, a time of stress or disappointment or weariness may cause it to resurface.

Brother Lawrence's example teaches us that holiness does not depend on changing our jobs or professions, but "in doing that for God's sake which we commonly do for our own." And, as we are doing that, we continually remind ourselves of God's presence, and we offer simple prayers of thanksgiving and supplication to Him.

Brother Lawrence's interviewer described his pattern of life with these words: "As he proceeded in his work he continued his familiar conversation with his Maker, imploring His grace, and offering to Him all his actions. When he had finished, he examined himself how he had discharged his duty; if he found well, he returned thanks to God; if otherwise, he asked pardon, and, without being discouraged, he set his mind right again, and continued his exercise of the presence of God as if he had never deviated from it."

Faster than grace? No, but "we are children of God, and...we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure" (I John 3:2-3, NIV).