In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.” “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. For nothing is impossible with God.” “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May it be to me as you have said.” Then the angel left her.

Virgins getting pregnant, angels talking about it… it reads like a fairy tale.  In fact for years that is all I thought the bible was, an extended set of fairy tales, stories that perhaps held some usefulness, but only in measured amounts and in measured places.

Then I started to reflect on what I was rejecting.  I was one of those that read the background material that 99% of people think is painfully boring.  I read evidences against the bible being an accurate translation and those in favor of it being an accurate one.  Keep in mind, when I started this whole thing I was firmly in the not accurate camp.  Over about a year I frustratingly became more and more convinced it was accurate.  That it had held up over time .

That didn’t mean it was true, mind you.  Just that what we have now is an accurate portrayal of what they had then.  To answer the question in advance, yes I continue to read about this.  I have probably read 20-30 books  in the past ten years  written by biblical or literary critics that argue against my position.  Even on my sabbatical, I was reading about the political and sociological streams that have influenced how we come to the conclusions that we do about scripture.  If you have questions about my conclusions with them, let me know…

Then I started to ask whether the book might be right.  Over time I came to conclude it was.  Again, please know that at this point I still didn’t like that it was true, I was still rejecting it.  But I couldn’t deny what I had come to learn.

Actually this account of this young girl, Mary, had a part in it.  It was one of the first miracles that is recorded in the bible that I believed.  

I concluded that I needed to chose my faith stance regarding the ultimate beginning of the universe.  Either God (or something like him) started it, or a large explosion did.  Both views are held by intelligent, respected members of the scientific and religious worlds.  For reasons that are too numerous for this post, I chose to accept it was God.

If God created the universe and everything in it, it would mean that he likely installed natural law as a means of creating a world that was predictable and fairly stable.  If he was the one that installed natural law, he would certainly have the ability to overstep it – set it aside if his purposes warranted it.  Much like someone writing software code.  If they create the program, they can create ways to interact with it that others couldn’t.

That conclusion showed me that the instance with Mary wasn’t that outlandish at all.  If God is in a realm that we cannot see with just our human eyes, and cares about us, and has the ability to step into our realm… this kind of instance would be no big deal to him.  Mary becomes aware that she is speaking to an angel and the angel says that she is going to carry a baby that is not conceived in the natural way.  No sex.  God would just start the pregnancy.  We don’t know what she looked like (except that she was almost certainly not white like the pic), and we have only traces of the whole interaction, but I believe it truly happened.

BTW - I have a great deal more on this in my book Should We Fire God?, so if this struck a chord, pick it up and give it a read.

So, in a way, an angel talking to a young woman about how Jesus would start his work in our world, became the way that God, speaking with a young man, showed him it was time to let Jesus start working in his soul.

Kind of cool really.  Glad I did it.

Peace, Jim

So we walk today in the tension of relief and sadness.  The awareness that things aren’t as bad as they could be and still not as good we wish.

Jesus told us this was the case.  That the reality of God’s presence in our world doesn’t mean that evil isn’t also here.  And the fact that evil remains (for now) doesn’t mean God is sitting idly by.  He is active and reminds us to be active as well.

Peter said it like this, “God isn’t late with his promise as some measure lateness.  He is restraining himself on account of you, holding back the End because he doesn’t want anyone lost.”  2 Peter 3.9 The Message

And it is Jesus’ example of unfair suffering that inspires me to action.  He died for a purpose, for the Kingdom.  For us.  Now he calls on me to lay down my life as he did.

Yesterday reminds me this life isn’t a game.

What is clear here is that the church leadership is trying to blend two things that I feel are not good to blend.  1) the scriptural challenge to help one another out – this one I like; and then 2) the cultural value of keeping others away from us – this one I don’t.

It would seem that the church is so comfortable maintaining distance between the leadership and the members that they don’t see the disconnect.  So you get “Please help out by sending over meals – but give them to the limo drivers, please don’t come by our home.”

Am I the only one who is bothered by this?

In a nutshell, if you watch me prick my finger with a pin, you cringe along with me.  Partially because it is a bit gross,  but not just because of that.  To many in the cognitive neuroscience and cognitive psychology fields, those neurons trigger a similar response in the viewer as in the one engaging in the action itself.  Simply put, if you watch me prick my finger, your body is aware that it isn’t your finger that was pricked, but only mostly aware.  Your body responds as if it were hurt as well, just to a lesser degree.

It’s fascinating.

Want to hear about another unexpected connection our body makes?

In a similar way, the emotional pain of romantic rejection, the “it’s not you it’s me” speech, seems to also trigger a surprising response.  Whereas the general thinking has been that romantic rejection most directly would register in the affective centers of the brain (the emotional control centers), that would seem to not be fully the case.

In research out of the University of Michigan (go Big Blue) a team has discovered that the parts of the brain that light up when hot water was poured on a subjects arm also light up when a subject would view an image depicting their social rejection.

I haven’t seen the peer reviews of this study yet, and I know from my past research that studies like this are notoriously difficult to interpret as the human brain is incredibly complex.  But what this does show is that emotional pain registers similarly to physical pain.  Emotional hurt can trigger similar responses as physical pain.  A fascinating demonstration of the connectedness between our emotional and physical worlds!

If only it worked the other way as well… having an orthopedic surgeon set and cast a broken leg is much more expensive than eating a tub of Rocky Road and listening to “I can’t fight this feeling anymore!”

But, broken leg or no, if you are now jonesing for some REO Speedwagon, here you go.  As always, you are welcome.

Peace, Jim

When we do that, we can start to do what Nouwen describes here.

“Dear God, I am so afraid to open my clenched fists!

Who will I be when I have nothing left to hold on to? Who will I be when I stand before you with empty hands?

Please help me to gradually open my hands and to discover that I am not what I own, but what you want to give me.

And what you want to give me is love, unconditional, everlasting love.  Amen.”

— Henri Nouwen (The Only Necessary Thing: Living a Prayerful Life)

Nouwen’s point is that we hold things with an open hand.  That we trust God enough to relax and instead of grasping or feeling the need to grasp, we relax.  It doesn’t mean we don’t work or that effort isn’t needed. It certainly doesn’t mean we don’t ask for specifics, if anything, this has drawn me into asking for more than I did before. It gets to our heart in the midst of that work and effort.

When we are able to see God’s presence in our everyday lives and experiences, and when we can realize that he is more deeply committed to our good and us than we are ever to his.  Then our faith, which is the promise of that which is unseen and that which is hoped for, begins to truly come alive.

So, my friend continues to pray for his job.  Yes, he would prefer predictability, but what inspires me is his willingness to hang in there for the ride.  To pray, to trust, and to remember that he is not alone in this, and he hasn’t been from the start of it.

So, to me, that is what faith is. It isn’t greater predictability, it isn’t a lack of confusion at times or often.  It isn’t ceasing asking for specifics out of frustration or confusion.  Faith means asking the Father you are convinced loves you for the things that matter to you, and then trusting him, whatever the response.  It means holding everything with an open hand, and relaxing.  Often he will respond in ways that make sense to us.  But that honestly isn’t the point anymore.  What matters more than getting what I want is the confidence that I will get what he thinks is best.

More and more, that is enough.

To me, that is the assurance of things unseen, the promise of things hoped for.

Peace, Jim

We clearly live in a Westernized culture that has been deeply impacted by both the scientific and industrial revolutions.   Both of those have been unbelievably helpful to our culture and the world.  We are now able to break down complex systems (organic and inorganic) into smaller parts, study them, and in many cases reproduce or replicate them.  These processes are sometimes called systematic deconstruction, we organize something, break it down to its component parts, sort it out then begin to rebuild it. How many advances in medicine can be traced back to those processes?.  How many developments in the industrial sector (that we likely appreciate in our economy all the more now) as well?

One of the issues that has come with these advances, though, is that they can tend to be overused and applied in areas where they are less helpful, or even misguided. James Watson, often called the father of Behaviorism, famously stated,

“Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years.”

Even though Watson isn’t as radical as some might think him to be, he applied a deconstructionist model to parenting and most of us would say that was a misuse.

Applying a similar systematic deconstruction method, to the study of God, also is problematic.

Here is my point.  I think we very naturally apply a that model to God’s response (or lack thereof) to our prayer requests.

It becomes about input and output to us.  We make a godly request, and we expect God to come through on it.  If he doesn’t, it becomes a process problem.  Did I ask the wrong thing?   Does God not really care for me?  Is he even there?  We approach it the way I approach my garden hose when the spigot is on but no water is coming out.  I look for the kink, straighten it, and the water starts to flow.  We assume that if we can fix the problem with the process, that we will be able to get the result we desire.

The only problem is that we know God isn’t like that.

And that is a big problem.

We know that in the scriptures he did not respond to the repeated requests of Lazarus’ family that he wouldn’t die. Lazarus actually died and only a few days later was raised from the dead.  We know that he didn’t allow a woman to be healed of a terrible menstrual condition, until after years of her suffering.  And we know from the latter parts of Hebrews chapter 11 that some people, whose faith God honors by the way, didn’t get their requests granted.

“Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. 36 Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. 37 They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated– 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground. 39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40 God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect. Heb 11.35-40 NIV

How many of those do you think asked to not have their torture happen?  How many asked to not need to live in caves?  If you were in their position, wouldn’t you?  But they didn’t get those things. But, before we get too angry at God, let’s remember he plays by his own rules.  Jesus, in the Garden of Gethsemeny, immediately before the process of his crucifiction was started made the most fail and honest request of the Father.  He asked God if there was a way this could be avoided.  There wasn’t, so it happened.

In those instances, God doesn’t intervene the way he is asked when he is asked because something larger is going on. Something bigger requires God to not use his own power.  And that is what makes it so tricky for all of us, including my friend.  He doesn’t know if he is in the middle of God setting something better up, in the middle of coming through regarding this job in a wild way, or if he won’t get the job at all.  How do we use our faith when we aren’t sure what God is up to?

I think that Hebrews 11.1 “Faith is he assurance of things unseen, the promise of things hoped for.” is drawing us closer to God than a strict deconstructionist/input output approach allows us to go.  God is calling us into something deeper and much better.  The thing unseen that we can be assured of, is his deep and committed love for us.  His full awareness of us, his commitment to us.  The promise of things hoped for goes beyond what we are asking for, now it includes it, to be sure.  Our requests matter to God and I believe impact him.  But that promise goes much deeper.  It is his promise to never leave us, to be more committed to our good than we are, to link with us, to love us.

Essentially, he is inviting us to take a deep breath and relax.  To realize that he has got us, and that he isn’t going anywhere.

I remember a time when I was a kid at the bus stop and I was being bullied by some kids that lived near us.  I had been cursed with a mouth that developed much more quickly than either my brain or my musculature had.  I had smart-mouthed some guys that were a fair bit larger than I was –  this wasn’t super uncommon.  These guys were messing with me and it was looking like things might escalate in a direction that I was not excited about.  And right at that time, my dad pulled up to take me home.  I think he caught wind of what was going on, as he usually just waited in the car for me to get in.  This time, he got out and walked up to me.  Said hello to my “friends” and then walked me back to the car.

In that moment, his presence was enough.

I think that God is a bit like my dad that day when he got out of the car.  Hebrews 11 is saying to us, “I have got you, trust that.  I am committed to you, believe it.”  Even if you cannot see that physically, trust it spiritually.  That is the focus of our unseen trust, our hope.

Come on back Wednesday and see how I think this thing works out…

Peace, Jim

Assayas: I think I am beginning to understand religion because I have started acting and thinking like a father. What do you make of that?
Bono: Yes, I think that’s normal. It’s a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between Grace and Karma.

Assayas: I haven’t heard you talk about that.
Bono I really believe we’ve moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace.

Assayas: Well, that doesn’t make it clearer for me.
Bono: You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics; in physical laws every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It’s clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I’m absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that “as you reap, so you will sow” stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I’ve done a lot of stupid stuff.

Assayas: I’d be interested to hear that.
Bono: That’s between me and God. But I’d be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I’d be in deep s—. It doesn’t excuse my mistakes, but I’m holding out for Grace. I’m holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity.

Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.
Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there’s a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let’s face it, you’re not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That’s the point. It should keep us humbled . It’s not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.

Assayas: That’s a great idea, no denying it. Such great hope is wonderful, even though it’s close to lunacy, in my view. Christ has his rank among the world’s great thinkers. But Son of God, isn’t that farfetched?
Bono: No, it’s not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn’t allow you that. He doesn’t let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I’m not saying I’m a teacher, don’t call me teacher. I’m not saying I’m a prophet. I’m saying: “I’m the Messiah.” I’m saying: “I am God incarnate.” And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You’re a bit eccentric. We’ve had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don’t mention the “M” word! Because, you know, we’re gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you’re expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he’s gonna keep saying this. So what you’re left with is: either Christ was who He said He was the Messiah or a complete nutcase. I mean, we’re talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we’ve been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had “King of the Jews” on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I’m not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that’s farfetched Bono later says it all comes down to how we regard Jesus:

Bono: [I]f only we could be a bit more like Him, the world would be transformed. When I look at the Cross of Christ, what I see up there is all my s— and everybody else’s. So I ask myself a question a lot of people have asked: Who is this man? And was He who He said He was, or was He just a religious nut? And there it is, and that’s the question. And no one can talk you into it or out of it.

From Bono: In Conversation with Michka Assayas, by Michka Assayas

I have a very good friend that is a very godly guy

He heard a couple of days ago that he didn’t get it.

Our oldest son, Noah, had the following math problem that I was helping him with last night. “If (some random) high peak in Ohio is 2480 ft above sea level and (some random) low point is 5089% lower, what is the elevation of that low point? He and I were both confused and worked on this problem for about 15 or 20 minutes. Hear that Mr. Knautz? That is dedication!

Our search for the right process was confusing and frustrating, but there was a resolution when we discovered the right way to set up a proportion, solve for x and get the low point’s elevation.

We were confused, it took a while to find the right equation, but we found it, punched in the numbers, solved for x and walked away with the right answer.

My friend’s problem isn’t that easy to solve. If God has power, awareness and love for my friend, then why didn’t he come through? There is no formulaic equation for that one. No stable x to solve for. Henri Nouwen said it like this.

“Theological formation is the gradual and often painful discovery of God’s incomprehensibility. You can be competent in many things, but you cannot be competent in God.”

Certainly there are many things that we can discover in the scriptures and cling to, I have experienced that personally. But we cannot ever get to the point that God becomes predictable to us. That we approach him in prayer and can be certain that we will get what we ask for the way we asked for it in the timeline we have in mind.

So what is the point of faith and prayer? I believe that faith receives its clearest definition in the book of Hebrews, Chapter 11. Here is what is said about faith. “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” Hebrews 11.1 NIV. It seems simple enough. It is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we don’t see.

But it isn’t that simple, is it?

First we know that we can occasionally hope for the wrong things. My motives aren’t always very good. Hopefully they are getting more aligned with Christ’s heart, but I am confronted with my brokenness daily, and that brokenness does sometimes leak out into what I ask God for. So, if I hope for something that is wrong, the book of James tells me that I won’t get it. “When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.” James 4.3 NIV. Yup, I’ve done that plenty of times.

So, if being certain of whatever we hope for isn’t right, what should we do? Assume Hebrews 11 is wrong? I don’t think so, I think the problem is that we aren’t looking deep enough to get to what we can be assured and certain of. It needs to be a bit deeper than a specific request.

I wonder if we just misunderstand that verse a bit. On Monday I will share what I think and then help me see if I am missing anything…

Peace, Jim

All three of those topics can lead to very intense responses if you feel that they are relevant to you and all three can seem silly if you don’t.  This post would be for those who do.

Justin Taylor, wrote a blog about Bell’s new book Love Wins: A book about Heaven, Hell and the fate of every person who ever lived. In the blog he had some very strong things to say about Bell and the possibility that Bell may have embraced universalism.  Universalism is the idea that God, based on his love for humanity will forgive everyone on the planet upon their death, and allow them to join him in heaven.  This is regardless of their desire to be with God or to be forgiven by God.  Here is one quote from Taylor…

So on that level, I’m glad that Rob Bell has the integrity to be lay his cards on the table about  universalism. It seems that this is not  just optimism about the fate of those who haven’t heard the Good News, but (as it seems from below) full-blown hell-is-empty-everyone-gets-saved universalism.

I want to be clear that I like several aspects of The Gospel Coalition and I value its focus and voice, even if I don’t share all of its views. (If you would like any clarity on that, let me know)  My issue isn’t with that.  It is with the apparently over-rapid response to a book that Taylor hadn’t yet read fully.  His response seems to me to have been too quick and too strong.

At this point, I will direct you to two of my friends, JR Woodward and Eugene Cho, who have written a much more complete reflection on what has been going on.  These are great guys, so, Jr and Eugene, take ‘er away…

First JR’s thoughts…

Now Eugene’s…

Thoughts?