Christian Cohort

I am creating a new website for my thoughts. I am joining a group of friends as we write together.

You can find my new site at www.ChristianCohort.com

Jury Duty

**UPDATED AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE**

I am not one to shirk my responsibility to the laws and rules of this country, but today I had an encounter with the Federal Court that made my blood boil. I was, yet again, summoned to jury duty. I get selected EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

I have jury duty every year. It is unavoidable that I will receive that piece of paper in the mail telling me it is my opportunity and obligation as a citizen of this nation. I used to think it was kind of annoying but I participated. Now I am wholly against this process and believe there must be a better way to have a jury of peers without burdening the citizens who are just not interested.

After the phone call I received and the letter I wrote, I am sharing here as my protest against this process that I believe is very much broken. Enjoy:

--
I have been faithfully upholding my responsibilities as a citizen of the United States and of Oregon. Over time, my trust in the juror system has been compromised and I have had some other thoughts that preclude me from being a part of a system that condemns other people with limited information and in a group of people with many different views on how to treat someone accused of a crime. Here are the reasons why I cannot faithfully participate in the jury system any longer. Some of them apply here, and some may not, but these are my reasons, in full:

1) It is said every time I receive a summons, and even this morning as I filed my information online, that it is a random draw, yet I get chosen every single moment I am within the legal parameters to serve on the jury. If it is local, I get chosen every 2 years. I was deferred last time because it was the week before Christmas and was told my obligation is done. And now 1 year later, I am being summoned to Federal court. I know they are not the same and I know I can be called in to serve, but it seems odd that my name gets selected every time. I would love to be part of a lottery to win money with these odds! I was raised in California and moved to Oregon to go to school. I moved out of state for about 4 1/2 years and moved back. Whenever I have been a resident of this state, I get selected to serve. My wife, on the other hand, who was born and raised in Oregon, has not ever been selected to serve and she would like to go do it. What about those odds? I do not believe it is random. I think there is a list and that the same people get selected until they prove to be a burden upon the system and are thus removed. It is not random and they have a list they work from and I happen to be on it. I don't know why.

2) The jury system was created so that we would maintain our rights as citizens to a swift and fair trial. "A jury of our peers" as it is said. However, in recent years, I have witnessed the downfall of people becoming less informed as to how we are to serve, what information is to be considered, and that we are now inundated with people who do not know much. Case in point: I last fulfilled my responsibilities as a juror in a case where a man was accused of stealing. The District Attorney (the prosecution) tried to bring up another instance where the defendant had been caught stealing. The judge overruled the use of this information and instructed the jury to ignore this piece of information in our deliberation. We were to "pretend" we had not heard it in executing our verdict. When we had heard all evidence, and went into the deliberation room, the "chair" of the jury brought up that he has been accused of this before and should be found guilty. When I brought up the fact that the judge said that was inadmissible evidence and that the store in question did not keep the video evidence of his theft, I maintained that he was innocent because of their negligence. We had NO evidence he had done anything. I am not a lawyer, but that's an easy case in my opinion. This "chairperson" said if someone did it before they would do it again and charged his guilt with past mistakes and did not even bring into account ANY evidence that had been presented. That was our job! To look at the evidence presented and to make our decision beyond reasonable doubt with that case and our chairperson went by the fact that she "hated people who steal". But I was bullied into marking a "guilty" charge by the entire room because they disagreed and if I didn't change my vote we were going to be held overnight to continue deliberating the next day. So I changed my vote and I believe justice was not served. I believe most citizens do not understand what they are dealing with when it comes to this. This kind of thing can alter a person's life and I do not want any part of it. If I were ever accused of a crime, I would want the evidence heard by a knowledgeable judge and not random people with judgment issues (to which I will speak about in a different bullet point). The jury system is broken.

3) Thirdly, this process is an undue financial burden to many people. I know from my research that many states do not require an excuse to get removed from jury duty. They simply check the box that states that they are unable to be on the jury. I am not financially in a place where a day out of work is good for me. It also takes me out of my regular daily duties I have to perform in order to make our Sunday morning assemblies at our church encouraging and special. I am the worship and young adult minister. I have responsibilities to entire demographic groups that only I can perform. If I miss a day of work for what I consider unimportant, it takes me days to catch up and I am held responsible by our church leadership and could lose my job if I drop the ball. The anxiety of being sick for a few days is a heavy burden on me. To leave and be at jury duty instead of writing my lesson for Bible class, or creating an uplifting worship service, is a heavy burden for me to bear. Let's be completely open here: it hurts some people financially to leave work to go and sit on a jury. When I worked for Fresh Aire Air Fresheners and received the last summons I was scared about my work and getting paid. I made less than $1000 a month and only 2 days per week to finish the work. It is unfair to say that the court will pay $40 for serving. That's not enough money and that is coming from someone who made $1000 a month.

4) Next, I am a man who believes in safety and security in my own person. I do not like feeling unsafe. I am a large man. I could hold my own if I were attacked. But I do not like to use my ability to defend myself. I have religious reasons why I do not like using my fists to hurt another person. I have only been in one fight my entire life and it was when I was in the 6th Grade. Another kid was bullying my younger brother (3rd Grade). I pushed the kid and he fell over. I knew right there the power I had and refused to use it. We walked away from any further skirmish that could have resulted had I kept hitting him while he was down. I have been bullied my entire life and have always hated the way bullies treat people.

With the election of Donald Trump (I did not vote for either of the two major party candidates, but a third-party candidate) I have watched and witnessed the way our more liberal communities respond when they don't get their way. Time after time, when something happens to someone they disagree with, they go into major cities and riot; breaking windows, setting fires, damaging cars, etc. I have worked downtown Portland for a brief 2 years as I was a tech/sales person for Fresh Aire Air Fresheners. I was constantly harassed by the citizens of the college, people who lived in the apartment buildings, and business owners, as well as the homeless. I would get my work done as quickly as possible to get the heck out of there every day. I have been harassed and chased by people who would ask me to sign their petitions for various amendments and bills that would be on the future ballot. If I refused they would swear and cuss and chase me for being "a white male with privilege" and a "racist".

I watched how people rioted when Trump was elected. I saw how Michael Strickland was treated for defending himself with his handgun...now he is in jail for defending himself with the Second Amendment rights our Constitution guarantees. A journalist who protected himself as he reported on the riots was arrested for pulling out his legal concealed weapon. He never had his finger on the trigger and once he was out of harm's way, re-holstered it. He was punished for doing everything in accordance with the law.

As of today, I refuse to go into Multnomah County for any reason. It is not worth the possibility of being accosted for disagreeing with the views of the governmental leadership that is housed down there. Portland is not safe whether the Mayor or our Representatives say so or not. I grew up in Stockton, California and know too well what safe cities are and are not. Portland is not safe. I know from experience and it has nothing to do with what the media have reported. I also have a non-life threatening, undiagnosed anxiety about traveling and walking around in Multnomah County. Downtown Portland is no longer a fun destination to shop, eat, or take in a show. I feel it every time I have to go there. It is personal and I cannot perform to my fullest ability while there.

5) As I have researched, it is said that religious reasons are not considered for being excused from jury duty. I heard it again today. I know that is what the law says, but I disagree. As a minister (of a combined 12+ years), I cannot participate in a system that has ignorant and sinful people making judgments upon others. I am sure you are familiar with the passage in Matthew 7:1 where Jesus tells the listeners (in His Sermon on the Mount --Matthew 5-7) that they are to "[J]udge not, that you be not judged." I would make sure that we know not to take this out of context so if we keep reading in verses 2-5, "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log our of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Clearly Jesus is telling the listeners to not judge someone upon which you hold the same offense. There is a time to make a judgment of moral decisions. We are called to "judge with right judgment" (John 7:24) when someone is doing wrong. But in the passage in Matthew 7, Jesus is telling the hearer that if we judge the same measure will be used to judge us in eternity. Without knowing what the case is about, I cannot know if I would be fit to make a decision (judge) whether someone is guilty or innocent and to make such a decision would require me to go outside of my faith with which I hold to be the first and most important thing in my life. No government, no power, no authority comes before God.

In Titus 1:5 and 1 Peter 2:13-17, it could be said that no matter who is in power, who is in authority, we are to submit our will to them and obey them. But we also know that in those passages, it clearly states that all authority in those positions come from God and He is the final authority with which they submit and it is not without God that they hold their positions and they are not free from rebuke when they do not follow God's will. Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego all defied the orders of the Kings they were under. Daniel continued to pray to God even though Darius had decreed that no one pray to anyone but him. Daniel was thrown into a den of lions but God shut their mouths (Daniel chapter 6). Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, taken from their heritage and their names changed from Hebrew names to exile names refused to bow to the golden statue of the King. They were ordered to be thrown into the fiery furnace. God saved them from the fire (Daniel 3:8-30).

John the Baptist confronted King Herod with his sin of taking his brother's wife from his brother Philip. The daughter of Herodias asked for John the Baptist to be beheaded for this. But the King was sorry for this oath and promise he made to her. When Jesus heard about this he went to be alone (Matthew 14:1-13). When David sinned by taking Bathsheba and having relations with her and getting her pregnant, he put Uriah (her husband) to the front line of the battle they were fighting so he would die. Nathan confronted David and said you are despising the Word of the Lord and doing evil. (2 Samuel 12).

I have many other examples I could give, but I will stop there. It is one thing to obey basic laws and rules. We are commanded to do so. It is another to defy the will of God and obey orders, rules, and laws that go against His will. I will not be a part of that. I cannot judge another person based on the limited evidence seen within a summons. I would not know whether I could uphold the basic functions of a jury if I do not know ahead of time what the case is about. Even so, I am commanded by God to not judge another person because if I am ever in the same situation, God will judge me according to the measure used to make a judgment in a courtroom. Religious objections should and do matter in whether one is fit to serve on a jury and I would hope to see this taken into account in jury pool creation.

I hope you will respect my positions and take me out of the jury pool. I understand you probably receive ridiculous excuses for why one cannot fulfill the obligations placed on them. I hope you do not see this as ridiculous but as a real, sincere, and highly personal conscientious objection to the jury process. It is one I once did not care for but complied. Today, I am firmly against this process and would be unable to commit time and would be unprepared to perform properly. I do not believe this process is fair or just.

Thank you for your time. I respect the difficult job you have and the time it takes to present information and to deal with such a process. I have nothing personal against you or the court. It is that I believe that there are many issues and believe they will never be fully resolved for the citizens of this state or the country until people receive a better education in how to conduct themselves, how to allow conscientious religious objections, and to fix and reform frivolous lawsuits.
__

I thanked them for their time. They excused me for financial hardship, but that isn't my point in item #3 at least not really. It goes deeper than that and it seems like she just didn't want to deal with me any longer today. But I will receive another summons next year to serve on the county court. I went on to send this to our Governor and our State Senator and Representative. I will have to wait and see if they respond with a real response or another form letter like the ones I receive from Suzanne Bonamici every time I write to her.

--
UPDATE!!! April 3, 2017
My letter was shared with the jury judge and he wrote back:

"Dear Mr. Lewis -
My name is Paul Papak and I am a United States Magistrate Judge. One of my duties, assigned by our Chief Judge, is to manage the grand jury and petit jury panels. It is in that capacity that I am responding to your email of 3/30/2017.

I did not read your thoughtful email as "ridiculous" or "insincere." Instead, I read it as intended - as a real, sincere and highly personal response to the obligations of jury service. And while I respect your view, it is precisely the thoughtfulness of your position that leads me to conclude that you should not be excused from jury service. As you know, our jury system offers a guarantees to a criminal defendant that his charges will be determined by a jury of his peers. That jury should be composed of a fair cross section of the people living in the jurisdiction where the alleged crime occurred. Your view of the jury system, while perhaps a minority view, is part of the views that make up that fair cross-section and to the guarantee of a trial by jury. Of course, you are free to express those views in more detail if you are actually chosen for a jury panel and it is possible that one of the lawyers may choose to strike you from service. But that is exactly how the system is supposed to work.

I have been trying cases for twelve years as a judge and for almost thirty years before that as a lawyer. While I often didn't agree with a jury verdict I was always impressed by the hard work and responsibility that the jurors put into their decision. I hope a time will come when you serve as a juror in federal court and I that the experience will change your current opinion.
Sincerely, Paul Papak"

So I wrote back to the jury court liaison and told her I appreciated it. She responded that I was now supposed to be there at 8am tomorrow. What? I thought I was deferred...no he is overturning it and has the final say.

Wow. So now I have to figure out how to get my children to school and home. Find someone to watch my new dog. AND let work know I won't be there.

She responded I didn't ever say anything about needing childcare. I responded that I didn't know I needed to say anything about having to get childcare because it wasn't an issue on the day I sent my email. Now the day before I have to report, it IS an issue.

I maintain this system is broken and needs serious reform. It is an undue burden to the people.
--
She wrote back and asked if I would like to be deferred again now that childcare is an issue. I responded, "The child care isn't an issue if I know I have to be there and have time to plan ahead. I didn't think I needed to include that with all of my other positions. Does my entire life have to be the business of the government? I want the government to leave me alone. I guess I need to expand my letter to 6 through 8 points. I need to be let out of jury duty, please."

And she again deferred my service.

This system is broken people. I am sure my case is mild compared to the hardships some have to live in and try to fulfill the burden the court system places on people.

--

Communion Thoughts: March 23, 2014

I had a rare opportunity to lead our church with some thoughts for Communion on Sunday. I know some people wanted to hear them but weren't there. So, I thought I would share them here for you. A few people told me they were helpful and good thoughts...I am glad they were. My prayer every time I get an opportunity is to uplift those who are listening.

I hope they are encouraging to you as you think about the Lord's supper.


*****
For the Bread:

Matthew 26:26
“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat, this is my body…’”

Jesus was clear that this meal was the living embodiment of him, his example of life and death. Every time going forward, these disciples would gather to eat and break bread with one another in homes, with friends, family, strangers, they would remember all that they had seen and heard. It would live in their hearts. The smell of bread baking would remind them of the teaching Jesus had done and help them remember their purpose to share the Gospel with everyone they meet. They would treat one another as brothers and sisters. Family.

Paul would tell this story again to the church in Corinth and we read now in 1 Corinthians 11. That as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we would be proclaiming to the world that Christ physically died but he rose again for us. THAT is Good News.

Paul then fittingly goes on in the next chapter to talk about us being one body. He speaks of one body with many parts, how we all have a purpose and need one another…and I believe Paul is bringing us full circle today to what Jesus was also doing in breaking bread with his brothers.

As Jesus proclaims that this bread is his flesh and by eating it we are making a bold declaration, it is a tribute to what we are actually doing together. Just as the bread is being broken in front of them and hearing that this is his body, Jesus looks across the table as we are doing today and proclaims

THIS [I held my hands out to the people of the church] is my body.

As the body of Christ, by breaking bread together and communing in his name, we are taking a bold step to proclaim Christ’s death until he comes again. When I take and eat, I think about how every barrier must fall as I eat together with my brothers and sisters. To eat this bread means I must love again as I have been loved by Christ. Past pain, issues, disagreements, and hatred must be no more. I am no longer mine alone, but I am now part of a chorus of voices proclaiming the one thing the world needs to hear. Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah, our very Savior is alive! Believe! Follow him as I follow him!

THIS is my body. Take and eat.

Father, we humbly thank you for this bread. For the hands that made it…and for those that serve it. As we take this together, let us be aware of one another. As we commune, fill us with the love we should have for those that are sitting near us and for those across this room and around the world. As we pass the bread, open our eyes to ways we might serve the person that we share this food and give us strength in our weakness. Thank you for family. Thank you for the body. In Jesus’ name I pray, Amen!

*****
For the cup:

Matthew 26:27-29:
“...And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.’”

As Jesus continued in this meal, he took a cup of wine and used it to tell his disciples why he had to die. As Jesus shed his blood for us and our sins, he took on our punishment that he did not deserve. He did not want to suffer, but knew of the covenant he had made. It did not prevent him from asking to be freed from the coming crucifixion. Twice, he prays for God to not only save his people but to save him from the punishment.

Matthew 26:39 and again in verse 42:
“And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.’”
“Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, ‘My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.’”

Jesus wanted the cup to pass by him; for him to not have to drink it. He knew what it meant. By giving the cup to his disciples, he knew he would be fulfilling its meaning. For him, this cup of sacrifice was bitter. There are traditions in other cultures who drink literal bitter drink because they want to be reminded of what a bitter cup this was for Jesus. Today, we know what a gift and sweet blessing we have been given. We can take some solace in drinking our sweetened cup as a reminder that the Good News of Jesus truly is sweet. We have forgiveness of sins. We anticipate the day we can drink this fruit of the vine with him anew in our Father’s kingdom.

Father, we are humbled to know the sacrifice Jesus made. That in the bitter cup of death, we have been blessed with the sweet cup of life. Let this cup be a reminder that we are to share the cup of Good News with others…to let them know of forgiveness of sins and how it comes from above in Jesus’ name. And it is in his name we pray, Amen!

*****
For our offering:
We have communed together in the name of Jesus. By doing so, we have made a bold proclamation that Jesus is Lord. We have shouted aloud that he died and rose from the grave and lives today. We share that he will come again for his children and we will live together in eternity. It was a great sacrifice for God to send his son into the world. For Jesus it was a sacrifice to allow himself to be crucified for us.

Luke 12:48b
“...From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”

We have been given more than we could ever ask. As disciples of Jesus, we are well aware of the sacrifices that have been made for us; sacrifices so much greater than a simple sacrifice of money, service, or time. Because of this, we are called to remember God in our giving. But it should be returned to Him with joy, for it is all His to begin with and He promises so much more. Jesus is risen! He has given us a new and transformed life.

As we pass around baskets, place your offerings inside. We know the joy we have in giving for it reminds us where we place our trust. Pray with me.

Father, lead us to give you all our hearts and all our trust. Lead us in giving back to you in response to the blessings you have given us. Thank you for the cross. Let us be givers to all those we know in our lives. To give to our neighbors and proclaim our giving to be in the name of Jesus for the sake of the world. In Jesus’ name I pray, Amen!


__

The Gospel-menical Church - Part IV

I have taken some heat for bringing up a critique of the word missional and what is usually implied about through what it means and how many are using it. I posted this article written by Ryan Kelly on what God's mission is and that I gladly join that mission. I urge you to read his article before you go any further here. I think it is introduces where I am going and prevents any reader from assuming they know where I am going here. This is a great place to pick up our Gospel-menical church discussion.

One phrase I continually hear when it comes to being missional is that the goal of missional churches is to "join God in the work He is already engaging in the community..." or something to that affect (this is not a direct quote).

This phrase or idea (that I badly misquoted) has had me in deep thought because I am not sure it is biblical or that we can see examples of it in Scripture. In my study I have, in fact, seen quite the opposite. Let me explain.

Let's start with Acts 8:26ff:

Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:

"He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth." [NIV]

The phrase spoken by missional proponents cannot be fulfilled unless a person of God is present thus making it a false statement or simply that it is an ambiguous and circular argument. I call it ambiguous because it becomes a question of God being present in the lives of those who don't know Jesus. I believe God is present in this world, but he has equally charged us through His Son Jesus to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you..." (Matthew 28:19-20 NIV) It cannot be that God is at work in the lives of the world absent faithful witnesses of Christ. That goes against everything we've been taught by God in His Word.

The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. -- Acts 8:34-35 [NIV]

The eunuch did not know what he was reading about because no one had ever explained the gospel to him.

Some might argue that God was already at work in the life of the eunuch since he went to Jerusalem to worship. However, since he was not a Jew and did not grow up hearing the stories of how God had rescued his people from Pharaoh and how the prophets proclaimed the coming Messiah. He only knew what he had read in the prophets but did not understand what it all meant. God worked in the world by sending Philip to proclaim the Gospel.

We bring the presence of God through sharing the Good News of the Gospel. Unless someone shares the Gospel, is God truly "already at work"? I would submit that God is at work in the world through us and if we're not willing to share, the world may not know what God's will for them is.

As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. --Acts 8:36-39 [NIV]

Only at the sharing of the Gospel by Philip do we truly see God at work in the world. This goes for the saved and the unsaved. We must continually be reminded where our hope lies. We cannot assume God is "at work" if we're not willing to be at work ourselves in sharing His Word with everyone we come in contact with. When it comes to that, I agree with Robert Preus when he said, "The Gospel assumed is the Gospel denied."

I see two dangers in assuming God is "already at work" in the manner of the original phrase: 1.) We get ecumenical universalism. People who accept every and all doctrine without a Berean spirit or 2.) Complete atheism.

Our ultimate Mission (with a big "M" like Ryan Kelly referred to in his article) is to proclaim Jesus Christ and Him crucified for the forgiveness of our sins. That is the best and most biblically faithful way we can join God in the work he is already doing in the world. When we share the Gospel, the Holy Spirit is active in the lives of the people who hear. If we are unwilling to share it, we have assumed they understand His Word and the possibility occurs that they might follow any and every kind of false doctrine that is out in the world. Some may even wonder why it matters to be a Christian since non-Christian organizations are able to accomplish the same kinds of things without Jesus. The difference is we know where our ultimate hope lies.

"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. -- Matthew 5:14-16 [NIV]

__

The Gospel-menical Church - Part III

I continue seeking a Gospel-menical life. Those of us who claim Christ and the Christianity believe we have been redeemed and have been saved from something. That is the claim anyway. I am afraid that the answer to this question has had a shift; mainly because of a culture that has decided that having an answer to any question has become arrogant.

I believe the answer to the question, "What are we saved from? What are we redeemed from?" is sin and death. I believe it is that simple because of what I read all throughout the gospels and especially what Paul tells us in Romans.

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." -- Romans 8:1-4 (ESV)

I hear more than ever this claim that our soteriology cannot be about saving us from hell in the future, but that it brings heaven to earth. It is difficult for me to find that in the Scriptures when I read the passage I just quoted from Romans. We are sinners. There will not be heaven on earth until Jesus Christ returns in glory to bring His Kingdom with him.

If you can replace Christ, Jesus, or Christian with any other religious or spiritual group or organization, it is not be the Gospel. Here's an example of things I have heard people say our duty as Christians is...it is not a direct quote, but representative of many things I have heard:

As Christians, we can work for change in the world. Caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness; a hopeful outlook. We can bring the Kingdom of God here to the world now.

Replace "Christians" with any other words: Buddhist, Muslim, follower of Oprah, the "One" organization, communist, friendly, political, an upstanding member of the community, etc. Are these intrinsically good things? Some are, absolutely. Are they the Gospel? No.

[Side-note that bears including: my friend Dave brought up recently at a great camp that the Insane Clown Posse Juggalos (fans of ICP) go and do service projects in their communities. If you want to look up who those people are, please take the time to Google them but I warn you it is NSFW. You'll understand my previous points better if you do it, but you'll need a mind bath afterward.]

Those things like caring for one another and the poor are very well fruits of our Christ-likeness, but none of these things sets us apart as Christians from the rest of the world. What sets us apart is our willingness and desire to die to ourselves, take up our cross, and follow only Christ.

I have friends who aren't part of a church say things like, "the church is not representative of who I want to be as a Christian." and, "I know lots of good people who aren't Christians."

I don't think that I am a Christian so I can be a good person. I am a Christian because I am a sinner who has no hope without Christ. In that, the church represents Christianity very well. We are all in need of a Savior who saves us from ourselves. Leaving the church because there are broken people there isn't the answer, it is arrogance because apparently you can do it on your own.

Try replacing Christ in this next statement:

"Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures..." -- 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (ESV)

It is very difficult to do (I would say impossible). It worries me that many have changed the Gospel of Jesus Christ for something that is akin to moralistic, therapeutic Deism in order to look good to culture. They don't fit together.

It has never been and will never be arrogant to say that I know my Redeemer lives. Jesus Christ saved me and He can save you too.

__

"Gandhi Is My Favorite Christian Hero" by Ben Cook

My friend Ben shared this a couple of years ago and since I am posting old articles here as new in my "Gospel-menical Church" series, I figure not everyone has read it since he posted it in 2010. Plus he references one of my articles which makes him and his article doubly awesome!
-------

"Be the change you want to see in the world." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Go ahead and peruse your Facebook profile information page. Skip across to your friends... Eventually, you're gonna probably find someone who has this exact quote listed as a "favorite quote." It's so common, in fact, that several Christians will choose Gandhi's quote over any quote from Christ himself.

That's noteworthy. Even if it's just anecdotal; it's noteworthy. And poignant.

My good friend, Mike Lewis wrote an excellent article which provokes us to consider whether Gandhi would have even accepted the teachings of Christ at all - instead of the emasculated, play-nice-in-the-sandbox, "Jesus" we experience in popular culture. While that is an interesting question altogether, I am perhaps frustrated for another reason.

The emergent church movement is a wonderful, God-sent re-focus for our faith. I am thankful for the stirring they provide for us all. But my hesitation is this: the epistemology of this movement is ambiguous at best. Here's what I mean: I know what is true because it comes from the lips of Christ. Knowledge and truth really come from Christ - whatever He declares as truth is truth. In the above quote, Gandhi expresses truth very eloquently. But it's not truth because Gandhi said it. It's truth because it is declared as truth by the author of truth.

Here comes my question: now that Christians are more attentive to social justice issues... are we doing it because we are attentive to the Spirit of Truth, or are we doing it because it is a cultural value? As postmodern values take deeper root in our culture we see a steady erosion of any standard of objective truth. Except one: social justice/human dignity. The single objective truth in postmodernity is that people should be helping people.

How is it that we have come to the conclusion that we should be agents of social change in our communities? Is this truth given to us by Christ, or is it a cultural value cloaked in Christian terminology and verses? I know, I know - the criticism here is easy to say "who cares, as long as we can agree that it's important? Why can't Gandhi speak truth?" But how we get there matters.

According to Gandhi, we are agents of social change because of human dignity. According to Christ, we are also agents of social change because of human dignity. But also because we have received grace from our heavenly father. Oh, and also because our example in the world will bring glory to our heavenly Father.

When we are not attentive to Jesus as the source of truth, we can miss the boat on some very BIG issues. (The first 4 minutes of THIS VIDEO will illustrate nicely) Yes, this call for social justice has gotten so big in some emergent circles that it has started to eclipse the gospel. The real gospel. The gospel that Gandhi cannot give. The gospel that brings life. The great commission-driven gospel. The you're-a-sinner-Jesus-died-for-you-there-is-an-afterlife gospel.

Jesus puts social justice in its proper context in John 6 when he says, "the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." (John 6:33) In fact, in the greater context of John 6, Jesus is actually frustrated because the whole point of the miracle - feeding 5,000 people - was for people to turn to God. That act of kindness served the purpose of the gospel. But it was not the gospel.

May we always be attentive to Jesus: the way, the truth, and the life.

__

Zacchaeus: Notorious Sinner

Here is something I shared the other day at the youth rally in Boise, ID. I changed it a little, but it holds the same idea.

"Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.

When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today." So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

All the people saw this and began to mutter, "He has gone to be the guest of a 'sinner.' "

But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount."

Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." Luke 19:1-10 (New Living Translation)

Some observations about this all too familiar story. I think we tell this story in fondness about the wee little man who climbed in a tree because he wanted to see Jesus so badly and meet him and how the city laughs about him and how they embrace their new brother in Christ. But, I think there is more to this story than we've grown up knowing.

Jesus has come to Jericho, a larger and more important town than the villages Jesus has visited previously. However, we haven't got it quite right yet, because Luke says that Jesus is passing through Jericho. Jesus has not come to spend time in Jericho. Instead, he has another destination in mind (Jerusalem) and it happens that he has to go through Jericho to get there and we know what was in store for him in Jerusalem.

Jesus was famous enough that something would arise as a result of Jesus' passing through the town with people gathering and crowding each other out to see the man and his followers. If that were not so, there would be no reason for a short man to climb a tree in order to see for himself what the fuss was all about. But were people cheering and laying their cloaks on the road for Jesus? Was the mayor holding out the key to the city? Luke gives no indication that Jesus was given anything remotely resembling a warm welcome. Why the stir, then? Our best hint comes from previous stories of the journey towards Jerusalem where Jesus is questioned by the Pharisees in front of a crowd. Such questioning is made with the intention of publicly discrediting the teacher by catching him in heresy. It happens that no such encounter is recorded for Jesus' visit to Jericho. Why? If lawyers and Pharisees were snooping around in Galilean villages on the lookout for heretics, surely they were on the lookout in the larger town of Jericho. Surely the Pharisees and lawyers were ready to hurl a challenge of some sort at Jesus, and the crowd was gathering in anticipation of an exciting debate.

Zacchaeus' act of climbing a tree to get a look at Jesus then should not be taken as an indication that he wanted to have his life changed by this man. Zacchaeus was eager to see and hear the hostility of his fellow townspeople. Zacchaeus' inability to get in front of them is enough to account for his action. And yet the anticipated debate does not occur. Why?

Jesus chose to stop the Jericho debate before it started. Seeing a well-dressed man perched in a tree, Jesus did not need supernatural knowledge to size up the situation. The signs that Zacchaeus was a rich man hated by everybody in town was obvious. This was the situation that Jesus chose to address. Once Jesus went down that road, there was no chance for another debate. Jesus could recognize the social matrix of Jericho immediately. We know this as soon as Jesus called out to the tax collector and invited himself to his house.

Luke says that, "all the people saw this and began to mutter, "He has gone to be the guest of a 'sinner.' " Here is another example of Luke's insight. It isn't just the Pharisees and lawyers who grumble about Zacchaeus. It is everybody who grumbles about him. It is hard not to hear an echo of the words of the Pharisee Simon who had, like Zacchaeus, invited Jesus to his house. When a woman "who was a sinner" entered and Jesus allowed her to bathe his feet and dry them with her hair, Simon muttered to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner." (Luke 7:39) At the same time, the people of Jericho are thinking, if this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of man this is who was sitting up in a tree—that he is a sinner. Jesus knew.

The earlier story showed the hatred of a rich and law-abiding citizen for a broken woman with a "notorious" reputation. Jericho would have been an unusual town to say the least if there were not many downtrodden people in the crowd, including more than one woman known as "notorious". For that matter, there would likely have been more than one deranged person like the demoniac from Capernaum. Such people could easily have been the communal scapegoat for Jericho, but it was Zacchaeus who gets it. It follows then, that women who were sinners and other downtrodden people were among those who grumbled that Jesus had "gone to be the guest of a sinner." One suspects that Zacchaeus deserved to be hated by everybody because, as a tax collector, he was profiting from Rome's occupation of the Jewish lands at the expense of his own people and garnering his own pay from what money he collected beyond what Rome demanded of him.

Perhaps in a small village there is only one person who stands out in so significant a way, but in a town like Jericho, they most likely had many people to choose from. We are left with the likelihood that downtrodden women and possessed men, if spared the ordeal of becoming the scapegoat, can just as easily turn against the scapegoat as anybody else. Luke shows us that anybody can be the scapegoat and everybody can be a persecutor if given the opportunity.

If Zacchaeus needed to be converted, we can be sure that Jesus desired that conversion, just as he hoped that Simon would be converted by the example of love shown by the woman who was a sinner. The challenge of this story, however, is not limited to the possible conversion of one person, but it extends to the possible conversion of the whole community. By singling out Zacchaeus and inviting himself to that man's house, Jesus has already robbed Jericho of its scapegoat.

Everybody turns to grumbling at Jesus for going to the house of a man who is a sinner suggests that Jesus is well on his way to becoming the object of hatred.

Not quite the same tale I heard growing up, but useful nonetheless.

What can we learn? I think that we need to recognize that people will be against us when we reach out to the "notorious sinners". Even God's people. In fact God's people will turn against us first. Should this hinder us from going forward and reaching the sinners? It didn't stop Jesus. I hear echoes of those in the church who still want the coolest programs, to grow wildly, to become people who are "friendly". To me these things are very typical. If we reach sinners, we may not grow because of the image that we might get. Does this mean we don't do it? Hardly.

__

Lost Seinfeld Episode

I was inspired by a friend who talked about how she parks in the far spots when going to malls. I too, do that. I hate waiting for a spot, blocking the flow of traffic...because people take their sweet time getting in their cars anyway...I could be in the mall by the time I park closer. The "Seinfeldian" word that would have been created for the show would be a "far-parker".

So, my inspiration caused me to write a "lost" Seinfeld episode called "The Far-Parker"

*****

Jerry does a little bit of stand up at the beginning of the show:
"Do you see these people waiting in the parking lots in their cars? They sit there for hours waiting for the perfect spot. Thinking 'If I wait here long enough, I can find a spot right up front...' thereby delaying the shopping experience that they came for in the first place. Is this really necessary? Are we becoming that lazy where we need to park so close to take five fewer steps into the mall?

I actually saw a woman wait for a parking spot that was four spaces from the front. Someone else came out that was parked two spaces from the front and waited for them to leave. There's an open spot right there! Let's go! Meanwhile there are fifty cars behind her honking. They should make the parking spaces all front row spots. Circle the entire mall with front row parking. Of course, then there'd be people so lazy that they would wait for the guy on his bike to leave so they could park on the sidewalk...

I park in the farthest spots I can. I like the looks on people's faces when you walk past their cars smiling. They're like 'How'd he pass us so quickly?' It feels good to be walking and passing cars. It makes me feel like Superman..."

The opening credits roll with an outside shot of a local mega mall. The whole episode takes place with the four cast members in Kramer's car. They are in the parking lot of a busy mall during the pre-Christmas shopping

Music plays...
Elaine: Wait here, I see someone pulling out.
George: No. False alarm, they were looking for their friend.
Jerry: Just park back there. We can walk 100 feet to the store.
Kramer: (irritated) Oh boy! Dyet...dat.
Jerry: What?
Elaine: You're one of those "far-parkers" aren't you?
Jerry: (sneering) "Far-parkers"?
Elaine: OH! That lady is getting in her car...
Kramer: (accusingly) You think you're better than EVERYONE ELSE don't you!
Jerry: What!? Because I don't like to wait?
George: (interrupts) No. She's putting her bags in the trunk and going back to the mall...
Kramer: You don't like those of us who are waiting for a close spot and sneer and glare at us as you WALK ON BY! Don't talk to me!
Jerry: (pleading) Come on Kramer!?
Kramer: DADITDIT!!
Elaine: You know, some of us get cold walking that far.
Jerry: So I can't park in the far spots?
Kramer: DIDIDIT!!!
Elaine: You ruin it for the rest of us.
Jerry: (smugly) If I can't park there, why do they paint the lines?
George: I think it's a federal regulation.
Elaine: It's not right. You make us look bad when we wait.
Kramer: (harshly) You disgust me!
George: (interrupts again) Oh, look that lady is getting in her car.
Jerry: (very annoyed) We could already be in the mall!!...

music plays
(cut to commercial)

It's actually not a whole episode, but funny nonetheless. What do you think? Would it have made the show? I wrote this because there are so few shows that are actually funny today. It is my homage to the brilliance of the writers.

I may have to finish this episode...what happens next?!

__