the death of jesus

Consistent with one way of living, here's what really should have happened:

If Joseph was a faithful, obedient believer and follower of God's word, this would have been a logical, reasonable, and righteous thing for him to do.

See Deuteronomy 22:22-23 and Leviticus 20:10.

Yet he did not.

In a dream, he heard a voice claiming to be an angel telling him:

“Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:20-21 NIV)

Joseph believed this voice and did what it said. No record of him going to talk to the rabbi about it, or asking other believers for confirmation that this was indeed God's will. And there would have been no reason to listen to Mary when she told him about her experience with an angel, as she was a woman and in that culture, her words did not count. However, he listened and believed despite many reasons not to.

And so at Easter, we remember Jesus' death at age 33 rather than as an unborn child.

---

What do you think? Did Joseph do the right thing? What choices did he have? How do you feel about the one he made? How would you feel if someone today made a similar choice where instead of following what the Bible clearly said, they heard God speak to them?

* Thanks to a good friend for the idea of the "Joseph's options" cartoon, which then inspired the top cartoon on "the death of jesus."

[oppositional religious identity]

It's been said that religion is the cause of all violence. However, in his recent book, Brian McLaren gives a more nuanced perspective on this:

The tensions between our conflicted religions arise not from our differences, but from one thing we all hold in common: an oppositional religious identity that derives strength from hostility.

He then goes on to discuss how when a social group (think church or a group of Christians) feels threatened, they suspend the normal rules and daily activities, diverting "attention and energy to hostility" and then focusing that hostility "on a target,—real or imagined, legitimate or manufactured, among them (as a classic enemy) or among us (as an internal scapegoat)."

What he later adds to this, is that this is often done not out of hatred or antagonism but rather, from a "loving defensiveness". In other words, people feel that the values and beliefs they hold and cherish are under attack, and they act to defend these values. This can ironically happen in ways that result in behaviour which normally would be considered antithetical to the person or group's beliefs, but considered necessary for their protection.

no book burning this time

This past week, Rob Bell said the following at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco:

"I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it’s a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs — I think this is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are.”

And he has also endorsed a book called Does Jesus Really Love Me?: A Gay Christian’s Pilgrimage in Search of God in America. From the back of the dust jacket:

“In telling these stories–chief among them his own–Jeff has done an extraordinary thing, showing us all to the God who is big enough and loving enough and true enough to meet all of us exactly where we’re at. This book is moving, inspiring, and much needed.” (Rob Bell, author of What We Talk About When We Talk About God and Love Wins)

Quite astounding, but not surprising. And the reactions cover the full range from agreement and delight to disagreement and rejection (with some "kicking him out of evangelicalism" yet again). Rob Bell is the first high profile North American evangelical leader to be public about such views (Britain's Steven Chalke came out with a similar perspective earlier this year).

---

Hear Rob Bell speak for himself

Read more about what Bell said at Grace Cathedral, including his comments about a dying subculture: Greg Carey at HuffPo

About the cartoon: simply poking fun at the idea of being "progressive" because of recycling paper instead of burning it while at the same time suppressing differences and not being willing to engage in dialogue on important matters.

gospel according to bell

This cartoon isn't really about Rob Bell, though it takes elements of what he said and shows how some members of the public might perceive his message.

It's more about the illogical ways that people think. For example, from what he is saying, it would seem that the man in the picture has or had the idea that even though hell does not exist, that homosexuals are still going there. Of course, this is not really logical -- if hell doesn't exist, no one can go there. But old prejudices die hard, as does black and white thinking and "us and them" thinking.

For example, in response to Rob Bell's recent comments about same-sex marriage, one reader made this comment:

"You're either Christian or gay. Can't be both." Hmm. This would be contradicted by the many LGBT people who are vibrant followers of Jesus.

"Homosexuals aren't going to heaven." Really? I thought Jesus opened the way for all to enter....

"You cannot change God's mind." What buzzbird is really saying here, is that they are set in their ways and won't change their mind. We already know that God "changes his mind" (example).

"You cannot change the bible truths." One thing is for sure, that we often can't agree on what those truths are and which apply today or not.

What do you think?

[Why did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha and Mohammed...]

Brian D. McLaren has written an excellent book Why did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road? Christian Identity in a Multi-Faith World, which I highly recommend.

From the Amazon.ca review:

When four religious leaders walk across the road, it's not the beginning of a joke. It's the start of one of the most important conversations in today's world.

Can you be a committed Christian without having to condemn or convert people of other faiths? Is it possible to affirm other religious traditions without watering down your own?

In his most important book yet, widely acclaimed author and speaker Brian McLaren proposes a new faith alternative, one built on "benevolence and solidarity rather than rivalry and hostility." This way of being Christian is strong but doesn't strong-arm anyone, going beyond mere tolerance to vigorous hospitality toward, interest in, and collaboration with the other.

Blending history, narrative, and brilliant insight, McLaren shows readers step-by-step how to reclaim this strong-benevolent faith, challenging us to stop creating barriers in the name of God and learn how affirming other religions can strengthen our commitment to our own. And in doing so, he invites Christians to become more Christ-like than ever before.

I will be quoting occasionally from this book in future posts. Buy it or borrow it from your local library!

Info: Brian D. McLaren (New York, Jericho Books: 2012)

alpha to omega

Jesus is for everyone. It doesn't matter who you are. He loves you and his arms are open to you.

a brutal unity: personal case study

This post follows up on a previous post on “a brutal unity explored”. I highly recommend that you read it first, as it provides the conceptual background for understanding this case study. The original post talked about brutal unity as an individual might apply it to their situation in a church or community context. This post takes a specific conflict at a real church and provides extensive discussion of how one individual (the author) is applying the concept of brutal unity to the situation, as well as some discussion of how the church in question might apply the concept within the larger denominational context.

the church

St. Pea’s Church, located in a large Canadian city, is part of a mainline denomination. While the whole denomination believes in the gospel and in evangelism, St. Pea’s specifically considers itself evangelical and Bible-believing. The leadership is conservative in its views and holds to a traditional view of marriage. While there is a range of views and perspectives on sexuality among the parishioners, the leadership is not affirming of LGBT people.

the church member

My family and I have been attending this church for the past eight years. I hold a more progressive view and believe in the true equality of LGBT people in the body of Christ. The rest of my family has a range of views which are left of center and would be considered gay-friendly. This belief, or standard, is at variance with that of the leadership and many of the parishioners. I can live with this because the community is good and because conservative views regarding marriage are not a focus of the church. Thus, I let my “standards be suffered” for the sake of the church community. This does not mean that I ignore, give up or deny what I believe. It means that I put these beliefs to the side in order to be in relationship with others who may not share my views on sexuality, but with whom I have much in common as we follow Jesus together.

the synod resolution and decision

Along with the other parishes in this geographical area, St. Pea’s is part of and comes under the authority of the diocese. In the early fall of 2012, the diocese held its synod (assembly), at which Resolution G-3 was presented:

Blessing Same-Gender Committed Unions: That Synod request the Bishop to grant permission to any clergy who may wish to offer prayers of blessing for civilly married same-gender relationships.