Bible Reading Challenge

When something good happens, who did it?

2009-06-06T06:06:00.002-05:00

When something good happens in my life, I'm often tempted to say: I did it! or: This wouldn't have happened except for what I did... But is that really the case? I mean - can I accept all the praise for good things that happen in my life - even all the good things that I seem to cause in my life? Or should I assign everything to God? Should I say that regardless of what I had done, if God wanted it to happen, it would have happened - regardless of my action (or inaction)?

I love how Isaiah addresses this in verse 26:12 - where he writes: For indeed, all that we have done, you have done for us. In other words, it's a joint effort - us and God! We're working together!

So the way I see it, we can do nothing good on our own - without the help of God. But on the other hand, God uses people to accomplish his good purposes on the earth. Things don't just happen - people do them...

This is great news - that God loves me - and everyone else - enough to use us to do the things he wants. But it's also a challenge, because this means that God expects us to work with him, and to listen to him, and to follow his ways.

I pray that God will continue to give me the strength to follow him.

Memorial Day Prayer

2009-05-20T12:27:00.003-05:00

Since this coming Monday is Memorial Day, I have been trying to write a Memorial Day prayer. I've probably read over a dozen prayers claiming to be for Memorial Day, but I haven't been happy with either of them. They seem to have one of two problems:

1. Some of the prayers seem to imply that the soldiers of the US are doing God's work. They tie our country and our religion a little too tight for my taste, as I believe that nothing is above the Kingdom of God - and that the US certainly doesn't embody the characteristics of God's Kingdom (just as no country currently on earth does).

2. Other prayers take the opposite tack, and are so careful not to intertwine the US and Christianity, that they forget the meaning of Memorial Day: to honor fallen soldiers. Instead, they focus on other things - sometimes not even mentioning our soldiers or our nation at all.

There has to be a middle ground somewhere. There has to be a place where we can thank God for our country, and thank God for the men and women who have defended this country, without stating that God has somehow made us better than others who live in other countries. Has God blessed us in the US? Absolutely! But I believe he has also blessed the people of other nations as well - often in different ways.

So after reading these various prayers on the Internet and in the United Methodist Book of Worship, I have come up with something that I plan to use in our church this Sunday. I'm copying it here for review and critique, if any so desire:

Righteous God,
You are the Lord and the Creator of all that is, all that was, and all that will be.
You rule over every nation,
From the United States of America
To the smallest countries of the world.

We thank you, Lord,
That you have blessed us with freedom and liberty in this country
Just as you have blessed citizens of other countries in numerous ways.

We also thank you, Lord,
For those brave men and women who have sacrificed themselves
Even to the point of death
To uphold and protect those freedoms
From people and nations which are seeking evil for us.

We trust, Lord,
That though there is a time for war,
There is also a time for peace.

Help us to live then, not as people of war,
but as people who desire and love peace
Help us to be more eager for agreement than for victory.
And help us to refrain from hate, but seek to always show your love.

For we desire to be faithful to you, and to your Son Jesus Christ,
Amen.

40 Days of Prayer for the United Methodist Church

2009-05-18T08:52:00.002-05:00

A few months ago, I ran across some chattering on the Internet from some of the Young Clergy in the United Methodist church. Among other things, the idea was floated around of holding a Prayer Vigil - 40 days of prayer starting May 18th. This date was chosen to coincide with the first Annual Conference this year.

Please join us in praying faithfully for the renewal and revitalization of the United Methodist Church.

PS - I wrote the prayer for June 16th...

Heap Burning Coals?

2009-04-14T07:04:00.002-05:00

Last night in our Bible Study, we had a discussion about what Paul meant by the term "heap burning coals upon [an enemy's] head" in Romans 12:20. Obviously this is a metaphor, but what exactly does it refer to, and what does it mean? Two possibilities were offered up, one of which I'd never heard before. So I decided to look up the phrase and see what other commentaries and interpreters thought Paul was saying here.

The first thing I discovered was that Paul is borrowing the phrase (actually much of the surrounding passage) from Solomon - in Proverbs 25:21-22. So doubtless, this was referring to an ancient practice - almost 1000 years old even when Paul used the term.

The next thing I discovered is that no one agrees on what the phrase means - not entirely. Most people saw it as a good thing - or at most a bad thing which brings about good. Let me detail a few of the thoughts:

1. John Wesley (and others) believed that this referred to the practice of refining metal - that burning coals were heaped upon ore to refine them. In the same way, the "burning coals" of caring for our enemy would refine him. As Wesley put it (copying from Adam Clarke) "Heaping coals of fire upon its head: In the kind warmth the metal learns to glow, And pure from dross the silver runs below."

2. Another common understanding is that by loving our enemies, we would cause them to feel the burning pain of shame and remorse - which would lead to a change in heart. One person last night put it this way: Kill them with kindness.

3. Another interpretation that was shared last night (and that I found again this morning) relies on the belief that in ancient times, women would often seek out coals from their neighbors to light their own fires that had gone out. They would carry these coals in a clay stove upon their head. So if someone were to give them a "heaping pile" this would be a very generous act - since a person really only needs one good coal to light a fire.

There are many other interpretations of this phrase, although most are simply other takes on the first two I've shared.

Personally, I'm not sure what real-life act inspired the metaphor, whether it was the pain of being burned, refining metal, or carrying live coals on a head to start a fire. Neither Solomon nor Paul explains this. But based on the context - I would say that "heaping burning coals" is not meant to be a punishment - it's not meant to be vengeance - but a way of showing love and hopefully effecting a change in the other person.

Whatever it is - I pray that no one ever has to do it to me!

Forsaken by God?

2009-03-18T09:25:00.003-05:00

My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?

Those words rung out from the cross as Jesus was dying. Most people, especially Christians, would recognize this. But why did he say them? Did God really forsake him? Was Jesus about ready to give up? Or was there something more going on here?

Well, as I re-read Psalm 22 this morning, I was reminded that Jesus was quoting from it. Originally, this was a psalm of David, probably written as he was fleeing from Saul or from his son Absolom. But as I read through it, I realized that all it can also be an apt description of Jesus' experience upon the cross.

Let me run through just a few of the similarities:

v1 - Jesus may have felt abandoned by God to some extent. Many people say that on the cross, the sins of the world were laid upon Jesus, and at this point, God broke the constant contact that he kept with his Son, since God cannot look upon Sin. however, others question if this was the case.

v6 - Jesus had been scorned, even by his friends, and was despised by many people, including an angry mob just a few hours before

v7-8 - Jesus was mocked by the soldiers, by the others being crucified with him, and by the crowd. They taunted him, saying: Have angels bring you down from the cross!

v14 - "poured out like water" - the spear that pierced Jesus brought forth blood and water - and blood was pouring from other places as well.

v14 - "bones out of joint" - Jesus would have certainly experienced this

v15 - "mouth is dry" - another common experience for victims of crucifixion

I could go on - but I think these examples will suffice. So obviously, this Psalm could be applied to Jesus in what he was experiencing upon the cross.

So the question then becomes: Did Jesus intend for his hearers to think of the Psalm - or did he really just want to use the first verse? In my opinion, he wanted the whole thing - all the negatives - as well as all the good things. You see - this was just a song of desperation - there was hope: a faith in God, a certainty of salvation, even promises at the end that God will reign forever.

So if that's the case, then Jesus' exclamation wasn't simply a cry of desperation, and it certainly wasn't a hopeless plea. You see, Jesus knew that his death would serve a purpose, just as David knew that his problems would serve a purpose as well.

I my opinion, this Psalm is a study in contrasts - a dialogue in the writer's mind between what he is experiencing, and what he knows to be true. On the one hand, enemies were encroaching, and in Jesus' case, even seemed to win (for 3 days). But despite the evil being done, the Psalmist (and Jesus) knew that God would triumph at the end, that the suffering would not be in vain.

This is the gospel - that Jesus' suffering on the cross was not in vain - but for the purpose of salvation. And our hope is that the suffering in our life will also not be in vain - but somehow used to bring the Kingdom of God upon the earth.

What a Way to Start!

2009-02-25T06:11:00.002-06:00

When I took Speech classes in college, I was told that your opening statements are very important. Among other things, you want to make them interesting - to catch people's attention - but not too heavy - as people generally aren't ready to listen to you just yet. And when you are speaking in front of an unfamiliar audience, a quick introduction and a thanks for the invitation is usually helpful. I must admit that I don't always get it right, but I do at least try.

Peter, on the other hand, either never recieved this teaching - or just completely disregarded it. Take his opening statements in Acts 10 to those who had gathered at Cornelius' house to hear him speak: In verse 28 and 29, he says: "You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without objection."

What an opening line! He basically started off by saying: I don't want to be here. It goes against the entire fiber of my being. You are Gentiles - You are unclean - and so my upbringing tells me that I am sinning to even be in this house. Yet since God told me to come, I am here...

How do you think the people were feeling at this point? Insulted? Put-down? Maybe... That was my initial thought - that I couldn't believe Peter was saying something like that - in front of everyone - that God had directly sent him to. But then I got to thinking about it a little more...

This was probably a very awkward time for Peter. He had never been in a Gentile's house before - and didn't really know how to act. But he knew that God had called him there. So instead of beating around the bush - and acting like everything was fine and dandy - he decided to clear the air - and let people know what was going on in his head. He told them the truth - he told them that God was working on his views of clean and unclean - and even though he didn't know where it would lead - he was willing to follow the Spirit.

A few verses later, we read that while Peter was speaking to them about Jesus, the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles - which amazed Peter's Jewish friends. But I have to wonder - if Peter had not admitted his feelings at the beginning - would the Holy Spirit have been able to use him so mightily? If Peter had not broached the subject, but had allowed himself, his friends, and his audience to dwell on the thought that Peter was breaking the law - or that what he was doing may have been a sin - then I think the Holy Spirit would have had a harder time breaking through.

But Peter was faithful - in a brash, bold, sort of way - and the Lord did incredible things through him that day. And a few chapters later, we find Peter speaking up for Paul's missionary work to the Gentiles at the Jerusalem Council - which officially opened the door for anyone to become a Christian without ever becoming a Jew (which is good news for each of us).

Correction to a Sermon

2009-02-05T08:57:00.002-06:00

I really hate to make mistakes. Even more than that - I hate to admit that I made a mistake. But a few weeks ago, in a sermon on the reforms of King Josiah, I said something that I have since realized was false. I said that when the King was delivered the Book of the Law - that it had likely been missing for hundreds of years - possibly since the day Solomon consecrated the Temple - or even before. I based this on the fact that there is no mention of a Book or a writing or anything like that from Judges 8 to 2 Kings 22.

However, as I have been reading through 1 and 2 Chronicles, I have realized that the book of the Law is present at times, such as 2 Chronicles 17:9, when the priests were sent out by Jehoshaphat to teach the people with the Book of the Law. There are also many other references to the Law in 1 and 2 Chronicles, although it is difficult to determine if it refers to a written law - or to an oral tradition.

That being said, it was still an incredible discovery in Josiah's time - and judging by the way he acted - it had most certainly been lost for some time (although maybe just a generation or two).

Please forgive me for not doing enough research into that statement. My desire is to be truthful in everything I say in worship.

The Dwelling Place of God

2009-01-29T06:22:00.002-06:00

When Solomon was dedicating the newly-built Temple - he asked this question in the midst of his prayer: "But will God really dwell on earth with men?" He goes on to explain that even the highest heavens cannot contain God - so how can we expect Him to be contained in a Temple...

It's a great question - that can be answered in two ways: the Omnipresence of God and the Incarnation of Jesus.

Omnipresence means that God is everywhere at all times. There is nothing that can contain him. While he has a form (or more specifically - while he can take a form), he is not limited by time or space as we are. This is not to be confused with the Eastern religious belief that God is in everything - but simply that God cannot be contained in anything - especially considering that he made everything we know.

The Incarnation is a theological term meaning that Jesus came down from Heaven and chose to live among us in the form of a human. I often say that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human - even though I don't fully understand how - that's what I believe (based on the Bible and centuries of Christian thought).

So to answer Solomon's question: Yes - God will choose to live among us! He has - he still is - and in the end - he will permanently make his dwelling place here - in the New Jerusalem - on the newly re-created earth. Praise be to God!

Where were they taken to?

2008-12-18T06:42:00.003-06:00

When I was in college, DC Talk recorded a cover of a Larry Norman song: I Wish We'd All Been Ready. I didn't remember the whole song until I looked it up - but the part that's always been stuck in my mind went like this:

A man and wife asleep in bed
She hears a noise and turns her head he's gone
I wish we'd all been ready
Two men walking up a hill
One disappears and one's left standing still
I wish we'd all been ready

There's no time to change your mind
The Son has come and you've been left behind

Obviously the imagery here was drawn from Luke 17:34-36, and it assumes that Jesus was talking to his disciples about some sort of Rapture - where believers were whisked away to heaven - leaving the non-believers behind. And based on this song - as well as much of the teaching I've heard over the years, that's what I assumed the Luke passage was referring to.

But as I re-read the passage this morning, I began to realize that they may be other explanations. Especially since when the disciples point blank asked Jesus "Where" will they be taken - Jesus didn't specify - but merely answered "Where there is a dead body, the vultures will gather."

So what other explanations are there to this passage? Where else could the people be taken to - if not to heaven? Well - one possibility is that the person was taken by some sort of government agency for torture because they were a Christian (insert favorite conspiracy theory here...) Another possibility is that "taken" doesn't refer to a physical snatching away - but merely to death - that one will die - and the other will be left alive. And obvisouly, the Rapture interpretation is certainly valid as well.

Personally, I cannot be sure exactly what Jesus was referring to in this passage - but what I do know - and one thing I do whole-heartedly agree with in the song - is that we should all the ready for that day - whatever happens - that we not turn away - that we not look back to our former life - but that we wait for Christ - doing his will all the time.

In the words of Larry Norman:
I hope we'll all be ready...

Who Do You Say That I Am?

2008-12-02T06:46:00.002-06:00

In Luke 9, we read about a time that Jesus had gone off to pray - away from the crowds - with only his disciples around him. He asked his companions: "Who do the people say that I am?" All of the answers indicated that the people basically believed he was a reincarnation of a prophet who had died: John the Baptist, Elijah, or another ancient prophet.

Then Jesus asked them: "Who do you say that I am?" This was essentially his way of indicating that the crowds had it wrong - and that he expected his disciples to get it right. And Peter did... He said to Jesus: "You are the Christ (the Messiah) of God."

While Luke leaves it at that - and does not make any further comments - I believe that this question is still applicable to today - that we are still faced with that same question: Who do we say that Jesus is? Do we believe some in the world - who claim that he was merely a Good Teacher? Do we believe others who say that he was Misguided? Do we believe that he is simply a Figment of Ancient Imagination - possibly based on a real person - but not who the gospels present him to be? Each of these - and more - are reactions to Jesus that exist in our world.

But who do we say that he is? Who do you say that he is?

During this Advent season, as we prepare our hearts for Christmas, it's a good time to ask ourselves again: Who do we say that Jesus is - and what are we going to do about it?

The Longest Day

2008-11-20T17:12:00.002-06:00

Last week, Bill Gallaher wrote this email to me - about the events in Joshua 10. I enjoyed it so much that I asked if I could post it here, and he agreed. So here it is (slightly edited to remove the personal info):

-------
Since today was Veterans Day, I caught the movie The Longest Day on a movie channel and it reminded me of another longest day -- the passage in Joshua (10:13-17) about the sun and moon standing still. Given my scientific background, I have given that passage a lot of thought over the years.

The passage is sometimes ballyhooed as a point of contention between the Bible and science, but I think this is garbage and that there are several reasonable explanations.

The problem is that God would have to suspend a whole host of natural laws to achieve the literal effect of the sun and moon standing still. Unknown to the ancients, we understand now that the sun does not actually move, but that the earth rotates. The moon does move, but its motion is over a month, not a day, so the earths rotation accounts for the vast majority of its apparent movement as well. So, as we would put it today, the earth would have to stop rotating to achieve the effect stated in the Bible.

Halting the rotation of the earth would cause fairly incredible geophysical effects. The sun would disproportionately heat one side of the earth over the extended day, and cool the other side with extended night, leading to disastrous weather effects. The extended influence of the moon would exacerbate incredible tides on the side of the earth facing the moon for a full day. Secondly, as passengers on the earth we are actually moving at an orbital velocity around the earths center, at our latitude and that of Israel, of about 900 miles an hour (witness our awareness of time zones approximately that width). The deceleration from 900 to zero would kill us all. By this logic, causing the sun and moon to stand still is literally impossible.

There are, however, several solutions to reconcile the Bible with geophysics.

One, quite simply, is that God is God. No limits on what natural laws he can suspend if he wants to. The continuing problem with this solution is that such a dramatic event would surely have been given a prominent mention in the histories of other nations, such as Eqypt, Mesopotamia and China who should have independently observed the effect.

Two, the effect was purely local in nature, one of causing the Israelites to have an altered perception of time, or causing them to essentially extend their motions in time, while the actual sun, moon and the rest of world remained apparently normal to everyone else. Or perhaps everything BUT the Israelites and their foes were arrested in time. This is the solution I favor, since our perceptions of time can vary so dramatically. The one minute before the worship service on Sunday appears to go like lightning, especially if the microphones are malfunctioning, while holding ones breath for one minute seems an eternity. As you know, a moment of silent prayer rarely lasts more than a few seconds before the silence seems interminable, and never a full minute. Without an actual clock to adjust ones perception by an external standard, time can indeed seem to stand still. The literal truth is in the eye of the beholder. The Longest Day was coined by the concept that June 6, 1944 seemed to go on forever in the minds of the combatants, as it certainly must have seemed while they were storming the beaches and then remaining under fire for what must have seemed an eternity.

Third, the language of some phrases in the bible is intended to be purely metaphorical, a form of truth that is not literal truth. This gets one into all sorts of hot water in Biblical interpretation since metaphorical truth is frequently a matter of opinion.

Last, the phrase is not a metaphor but a figure of speech, frequently used in antiquity and today, as also illustrated in The Longest Day. There was special significance in ancient cultures in being able to defeat one enemy in a single day, mentioned a number of times in Assyrian and other accounts. The Battle of San Jacinto also gains in stature in this same way, quick defeat by superior strategy resulting in the liberation of Texas from Mexico. The difficulty here is that it applies to the Bible ordinary standards for literature, rather than the reverence it deserves as the inspired word of God.

That God extended time in answer to Joshua I have no doubt. How he did it is a mystery, but then, after all, he IS God.

Best wishes,

Bill Gallaher

What Makes Someone a Christian?

2008-11-18T08:55:00.003-06:00

Last night in our Bible Study, I made a comment to the effect that Mary the mother of Jesus was not always a Christian, and probably was not one before his crucifixion. This sparked an animated debate as most Christians, rightly so, hold Mary in extremely high regard. I explained myself eventually (after the chattering died down) that Mary was first and foremost a Jew who had found favor with God through her Judaism (Luke 1:28&30). But during Jesus' earthly ministry, Mary was not counted among his followers. Not only that - but Jesus at one point seemed to even renounce the fact that she was his mother (Mark 3:31-35). After Christ's resurrection, however, there is little doubt that Mary became a sincere follower of Jesus (Acts 1:14) - and her conversion likely happened earlier, although we cannot be sure of the exact time.

So was Mary at the time of her death? Absolutely... But was she always a Christian? Well - to fully answer that, we needed to look into some other questions: What makes someone a Christian? Can we rightly call anyone a "Christian" during Jesus' lifetime?

We quickly realized that no one living during Jesus' days on earth would have referred to themselves as a "Christian." In Acts 11:26, we read that the name "Christian" was not used until much later - and it was first applied to the church in Antioch. During Jesus' day, they were just called "disciples" or "followers."

So what does "Christian" mean? Well - I looked it the etymology of the word this morning, and at its most basic - it simply means "like Christ" - so used as a noun, it would mean "someone like Christ." In my opinion, that's what makes a person a Christian - being like Christ - or at the very least - striving to be like Christ. Over time, we have appended many other things to this basic definition, some good, and some not so good, but in the end, the test for whether someone is a Christian - is if they are striving to be like Christ - to act like him - and to think like him. Let that be our standard...

How does Mark end?

2008-11-13T06:54:00.003-06:00

The gospel of Mark ends rather abruptly, or at least it does in the earliest versions we have. At the end of Mark 16:8, we read that the women who met the angel at Jesus' tomb were "trembling and bewildered" and "said nothing to anyone because they were afraid." While many Bibles include verses 9-20, scholars have determined that the earliest manuscripts we can find, as well as many witnesses from the 2nd century, do not include these verses in their versions or commentaries.

This then raises the question of Mark's original intent. Did he mean to leave us hanging - not meeting the risen Jesus - and just with the note that the women were afraid? Or did he have a longer ending that was somehow lost? Or did he just never finish it for one reason or another? We can't be certain. Even the ancient scholars, much closer to the original, do not know the answers. The general consensus, however, is that Mark did not intend for his gospel to end in fear.

So if verses 9-20 were not written by Mark, it brings up the question: What should we do with them? Should we consider them an accurate account, just written by someone else (much as scholars see John 7:53-8:11 - the woman caught in adultery)? Or was this some person's attempt to "correct" the problem - even though they weren't specifically led to by the Holy Spirit?

Most of the additional verses just seem to be repetition of verses and passages that appear in other gospels, except for v17-18, which list the "signs" that will accompany the gospel. v18 in particular is questionable, because it lists "picking up snakes" and "drinking deadly poison" without being harmed as 2 of the signs that will "accompany those who believe." Do I believe God can do these things? Absolutely. But should we try them - and thus put these words to the test? I, for one, never will - unless I am explicitly led to by the Holy Spirit for an evangelistic purpose.

Maybe one day we'll know the final answer to this - but one thing I can say for sure - is that textual problems like this do not shake my faith in Jesus Christ - or in the Bible.

The House of Prayer

2008-11-05T06:38:00.002-06:00

In Mark 11:15-17, we read of the time when Jesus cleared the Temple. He was enraged by all the buying and selling going on - and especially the merchants who were abusing the system that God had set up in Deuteronomy 12 - where those who traveled to Jerusalem from afar could purchase their sacrifices at the Temple - instead of bringing them all the way from home.

But it seems the part that really got to Jesus - was that the business of buying and selling - had gotten in the way of the true purpose of the Temple - to be a "House of Prayer for all nations" - as he put it.

Right now, our church is in the midst of the annual stewardship campaign. And while I thoroughly believe in stewardship - and do not mind preaching on it - there's also a part of me that wishes I never had to - that people simply understood the concepts - and didn't need any cajoling or encouragement to give more... Sometimes I get the feeling that our emphasis on money - or the time spent on the administration of the church - gets in the way of the true business of the church: to be a House of Prayer - to be a Sanctuary of Worship - to be a Community of Fellowship and Learning.

But don't get me wrong - because I know the finances and administration are important. They just aren't the most important thing a church does. They are supporting players - things that must be in place - and running smoothly - for ministry to be effective.

I pray that we never get to the point where such drastic action is needed - like what Jesus did at the Temple. I pray that any church I am a part of - will take great strides to keep the Main Thing the Main Thing. I pray that God will honor our attempts to manage a ministry - and that he will look past our tendency to let the things of this world - get in the way of our true purpose as a church: To Love and Serve our Lord and Savior.

Belief and Unbelief

2008-10-30T06:50:00.002-05:00

Is it possible to believe in Christ and doubt him at the same time? Is it possible to have belief and unbelief in our hearts and minds simultaneously? If so, what does God think about that? What does he do with us when we get that way?

One of my favorite exclamations in the gospels comes from a man whose son is held captive by an evil spirit (Mark 9:14-29). This man brought his boy to the disciples while Jesus was on the Mount of Transfiguration, but the disciples could not drive out the demon. When Jesus arrived, after some conversation, the man said "if you are able" to do anything... Jesus quickly responded "If you are able! All things can be done for the one who believes." In other words, Jesus was rebuking the man for his lack of faith. Jesus essentially said that those without faith - those with unbelief in their hearts - will not receive what they ask for from God.

So how does the man handle Jesus' rebuke? He immediately exclaims "I believe! Help my unbelief!" What a contradiction! But how true - and applicable for today. Within the span of a couple of seconds, this man revealed his true heart - how he wants to believe that Jesus can heal his son - but he doesn't see how it is possible - so at the same time he also doubts it.

How often are we like that? We want to believe that Jesus Christ can still save us - we want to believe that the words of the Bible are true - we want to believe that God still works in mysterious ways - but we also have our doubts...

So how does Jesus handle the man? He rebukes the child's spirit - and heals him. The father's admission - of faith and of doubt - belief and unbelief - was enough for Christ. That's certainly good news for me - because while I want to have absolute faith in Jesus and the Holy Spirit to work today - I must admit that I still have doubts. But the good news is that Jesus doesn't require perfect faith - he only requires some faith - so that when he does something miraculous in our lives - or in the lives of those around us - our faith will strengthen - and we will give him the glory...

From Excitement to Disappointment

2008-10-22T07:33:00.003-05:00

As I was reading through Numbers 2, my mind was conjuring up images of massive groups of people - lined up and ready - for whatever would come their way. I'm sure it was an awesome sight - to see that many people - gathered in their regiments - and to hear the millions of people - cheering as their tribe name was called out. There must have been a huge air of excitement running through the camp - a feeling of expectation that they could conquer the world - with God on their side.

The only problem is - that I know the rest of the story - that just a few weeks later - they rejected God - and voted against conquering Canaan - and were thus forced to wander in the desert until the entire generation passed away.

What happened to all those feelings of invincibility? What happened to all the excitement? What happened to the dedication? And how often do we act the same? How many times have we gone to worship and realized what God has in store for us - got all charged up about it - and then faltered just a short time later? Thank God for grace - both for the Israelites - and for us today.

Which Old Testament Laws Are Still Applicable Today for Christians?

2008-10-20T07:02:00.005-05:00

I almost didn't write this post, because I don't really know how to answer my own question here, even though I know that this really matters. But I'll share some thoughts...

For years, I've been taught that Christians were required to follow some of the Old Testament laws, such as the Ten Commandments, but not others, such as the Clean and Unclean distinctions.

But as I've been reading through Exodus, and especially Leviticus, I've been realizing more and more that some of what Christians teach today almost seems arbitrary. Case in point: Leviticus 20... This chapter deals mostly with sexual sin - who a man can and cannot marry - and what punishments are appropriate for violating the code. Many of these laws are still in place today - some even with the force of secular law - the rest simply seen as wrong by Christians. But some are not followed by secular society or the church - even though they seem to be presented in this chapter as equal. So how do we know which are still applicable today, and which aren't?

Obviously, some of the Old Testament commandments are repeated in the New Testament - if not by Jesus, then by Peter and Paul - and some are specifically spoken against - such as in Peter's revelation about eating unclean foods. But the New Testament never gives as much detail as the Torah, leaving a little leeway for discussion in many areas. We also have the guidance of the Holy Spirit - and the teachings of the church Fathers - but I guess I'd like to have recieved a little more explicit instruction in the Bible itself...

The Dead Come to Life

2008-10-14T06:08:00.002-05:00

In chapter 27, Matthew tells us of at least three interesting events that occur at the moment Jesus is crucified.

First, we find that the curtain in the Temple is torn in two, from top to bottom. Matthew doesn't explain this any further, but the general consensus is that this symbolizes the way that Jesus has opened up the worship of the Lord to everyone - that there are no more barriers. In his day, only the priests could visit the Holy of Holies - and only once per year. But through Christ - and the Holy Spirit - we can access the presence of the Lord whenever we want - since he is now living within us.

Second, we see that there was an earthquake - that broke rocks in two. This earthquake was certainly felt on Golgotha (as it led the Centurion to pronounce that Jesus was the Son of God) - but it obviously occurred in other places as well - as we see from the next event.

Third, and probably the most intriguing, Matthew tells us that the earthquake opened many tombs - and that many of the saints were resurrected and went into the city, where they were seen by many people. Again, Matthew gives no explanation of how or why this happened, he just reports it as fact.

So my question is: Why? Why did the dead come to life? And why isn't this talked about more?

I have a feeling that this isn't talked about because it's a little strange - along with the fact that there is no explanation given - nor confirmation in any other gospel. Yet Matthew, led by the Holy Spirit to write, presents it as truth.

Could this be a precursor to the Resurrection at the End of Time? Could this be symbolic of the way Jesus brings life to dead places - like the River of Life from Revelation and Ezekiel? Does this give us just a taste of the power of Jesus' death - his sacrifice - upon the cross? And finally - can we expect similar things today?

I don't know the answers to my questions - but I trust that through Christ, the dead will come to life - both physically and spiritually.

Holiness Is Contagious

2008-10-07T07:26:00.002-05:00

In Exodus 29:37 and 30:29, we read that anything which touches the altar of God becomes holy. Simply coming in contact with the sacred surface is enough to make a person or an offering Holy before the Lord.

So my question is: Can the same thing happen today - with us? We don't use the Tabernacle or a sacrificial altar anymore, but Peter tells us that we are to be holy, as Christ is holy. Is this because we have come into contact with Christ? I would say yes. Does it also mean that we can transfer holiness in some way to those we come in contact with? Possibly, because with Christ in us, when someone sees us, it is like seeing Christ. And when someone touches us, in a way, it can be like touching Christ.

Why Such Detailed Instructions?

2008-10-07T06:59:00.003-05:00

As I was reading through Exodus 25-30, I was struck by the level of detail that God gives on the construction of the Tabernacle and the priestly garments. God doesn't just say "build me a temple worthy of my presence" - instead He gives precise dimensions and exact requirements - something that even a non-architect could figure out to some degree. Obviously there was still room for artistic interpretation, such as exactly what the cherubim would look like, but overall, God had a very precise idea of what he wanted.

So my question is: "Why?" Why does God care that acacia wood was used - instead of oak or cedar? Why does God take pains to list the 12 different precious stones that are to be attached to Aaron's breastplate - instead of allowing others such as diamonds or rubies? What is so important about the dimensions of the Tabernacle which, while large, are certainly not massive?

I have a feeling that some of the requirements are based on symbolism which has been mostly lost throughout the ages. But I think the overall message here is that God wanted the Israelites to know that this Tabernacle was His. He came up with the plans, he instructed the builders, and he gifted the people with the talents to accomplish it. The Israelites could never turn around later and claim that any of this was theirs. They certainly built it - but it was not their idea.

How does this relate to today? One example is salvation. No human can save themselves - it is only by the blood of Christ. Certainly we have to be an active participant in the salvation process: faith, confession, fruits, etc. But we cannot do it without the grace of God, and we would never know how to do it, if Christ had not come to earth and told us and showed us.

Eye of the Needle

2008-10-01T06:58:00.005-05:00

In Matthew 19:24, Jesus says that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God. The phrase "eye of the needle" has been the subject of debate among biblical scholars. If Jesus was being literal here, and talking about the eye of regular needle, then it would be impossible (barring some miracle from God) that a camel could go through it. It's hard enough to get a piece of thread in there sometimes...

But there is another option. In the Middle East there were many walled cities. Throughout the wall, there would be gates. Generally, these gates had at least two openings: the large door that would open fully and a smaller door inset in the larger one. This smaller door was referred to as "the eye of the needle." The larger door was opened for pack animals and caravans, while the smaller door was used primarily for foot traffic. For a fully laden camel to go through the smaller door, its owners would have to unload all the baggage - and then squeeze the camel through to the other side, at which point they could then load everything back again. It would be very time-consuming and difficult, but not physically impossible. However, for the owner, they would really have to want to get in the gate to go through that kind of trouble.

Which was Jesus referring to? We're not 100% sure. I like the eye of the needle in the gate - especially with the way the camel must be unloaded (symbolizing our need to unload our attachment to our wealth). Either way, it is only by the help of God that either can take place.

Too Much Work = No Time For God

2008-09-28T04:01:00.003-05:00

As I was making a roux yesterday for gumbo, I caught up on two days' worth of Bible reading. The Old Testament reading was a familiar story - the first few chapters of Exodus. In chapter 5 - I read about Pharaoh increasing the work load of the Israelites by forcing them to gather their own straw, but still create the same number of bricks. But verses 8 and 9 caught my attention in a way that I had never before noticed.

You see - Pharaoh wasn't just punishing the Israelites for asking to leave (as I'd always thought) - but he also realized that if the Israelites were working harder - if they were putting in more hours on the job - then they wouldn't have any free time to listen to Moses talk about God. Pharaoh called it "deceptive words" - but to him - that's what talk about God was. And it worked... You see - in verses 20 and 21 - after the Israelites realized that Pharaoh would not relent - many of them turned against Moses - and spoke out against God.

We could learn a lot from Pharaoh. While he made those comments - in an attempt to reduce the worship of God - if we reverse them - we can worship God more and better. You see - many Christians use work (jobs, housework, schoolwork, etc) as an excuse not to worship or not to pray or not to read their Bible. And while most work certainly has to be done - it can never interfere with our relationship with God. In my opinion, the Devil is using the same techniques that Pharaoh did - 3,000 or more years ago - by convincing us that work is more important that God. Our response then - is to be like Moses in verse 22 and following - and turn to God when the work becomes burdensome - and pray for deliverance. Far from pushing us away from God - our work should push us to God.

One final example. I started this post by noting that I was reading the Bible while stirring my roux. I could have stared at the flour and oil mixture for 75 minutes and gotten upset about how long it was taking to turn brown, but instead I chose to read my Bible and then talk to my wife. My work - instead of just filling my day - became an opportunity to grow closer to God. I encourage you to find a way to do the same.

Seventy-Seven or Seventy Times Seven?

2008-09-25T10:03:00.004-05:00

One of the passages I'll be using in my sermon this Sunday is Matthew 18:21-22. In it - Jesus is responding to Peter's question of how many times we should forgive a person. As I was reading in my NRSV, I saw that it was written as "seventy-seven times." But I've always heard it quoted as "seventy times seven" - which equals 490. So what is it?

As I was doing some research on the Internet - I came across this blog which asked - and answered - that very question. So if you're interested - take a look:
The Roman Sacristan

By the way - I haven't read anything else from this guy - but this article at least seems to be well-written - and I agree with his conclusions.

One Life for Another

2008-09-23T06:35:00.002-05:00

When Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery (Gen 37), they thought they were getting rid of their problems. Instead, they were only creating greater ones. Because when their land came under a great famine, they were forced to go to Egypt to buy grain for their household, and Joseph was the man who sold it to them (although they didn't recognize him).

On their way home after their second trip to Egypt, Joseph had his silver cup placed in the bag of his younger brother, Benjamin. He then accused Benjamin of stealing - and threatened to keep him as a slave and allow the rest to go home. But Judah, another brother, would not allow this. He had promised his father Jacob that he would see to the security of Benjamin. So he pleaded with Joseph (still without knowing who he was) that Benjamin be set free, and offer to let himself be enslaved in his brother's place. He said he was doing this for the sake of his father. (Most of this comes from Genesis 42-44)

Now - while Joseph didn't take him up on the offer - I have to believe that Judah was sincere - that he really was willing to offer his life - for the life of his brother - in order not to grieve his Father.

As I read this, I couldn't help but compare it to the actions of Jesus (a direct descendant of Judah) - who gave his life for each of us - in order to accomplish the will of his Father. Judah was willing to become a slave for another's sake - which Jesus did as well - when he came from heaven to earth to be a servant to the world. But Jesus took it one step further - by dying on the cross for us as well. And the outcome of Jesus' actions are even greater than the good things that came of Judah's offer... Thanks be to God for the great examples he has shown us.

Hush Hush

2008-09-20T07:15:00.002-05:00

Frequently in the gospels, we read where Jesus heals people - then immediately instructs them to not tell anyone who he was. Matthew 12:15-16 is just one example - that I read this morning. I've always wondered why Jesus was so adamant about telling the people to hush. I've heard a few different interpretations:

1. That Jesus wanted people to make up their own mind about him - and not be swayed by those who already knew him (but then - what does that say about evangelism today?)
2. That Jesus wasn't ready to reveal himself to the entire nation or world yet (but then - why did live and teach and heal so publicly?)
3. That it was some sort of reverse psychology - that Jesus actually wanted them to tell about him - so he forbid it - knowing full well it would make the rumours and stories about him even more prominent. (But where else does Jesus tell people to do something - and actually expect something else? This opens up a huge can of worms...)

But back in Matthew 12:17-21, Matthew gives us a reason by quoting from Isaiah. I have to admit that I'm still left wondering to some degree - but it does help a little...

In verse 19-20 (of Matthew) - the prophecy says that God's servant "will not quarrel or cry out... until he leads justice to victory." While this cannot be taken absolutely literally, since Jesus definitely quarrelled with the Pharisees and made some big public announcements - it can suggest that Jesus deliberately kept a lower profile than possible - until he decided to make his triumphal entry into Jerusalem - a few days before his very public crucifixion (it could also refer to the End Times - when Jesus will come back and establish his kingdom - in the final victory).

But it still leaves me to wonder: Why did he forbid others from talking about him? The quote from Isaiah simply talks about the "servant" - the "Messiah" - keeping a low profile - and not about needing anyone else to hush. Yet Jesus tried to keep others from talking about him as well. But regardless of why Jesus tried to keep the people hushed - we know that it didn't work - because people from all over Israel - and even from neighboring states - knew of him - and flocked to him - to receive teaching and healing. And they still do today...

Did Jesus Ever Condone Violence?

2008-09-18T06:20:00.002-05:00

Much ink has been spilled over the past few years over whether or how much the Koran advocates violence to achieve it means. Some Muslims argue that the references to jihad must be taken in context and constitute a "spiritual battle." Most Christians - especially the more conservative ones - aren't buying it... But few of those same Christians are willing to deal with our own passages from the Bible that can be construed to condone or even advocate violence. And I'm not just talking about the Old Testament, but quotes from Jesus himself.

Take Matthew 10 - Jesus is sending his disciples out to the towns of Israel to preach the gospel message that the "kingdom of heaven is at hand" (v10:7). He then gives instructions on what they should and shouldn't take along - and warns them of the coming persecutions on his account. But then we get to v34-36. Jesus states: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth... but a sword." What does this mean? How do we reconcile this with the Beatitudes - esp v9 that says "Blessed are the peace-makers"? How can Jesus advocate making peace at one point - but bringing a sword at the next? Is this where the UN got the idea of calling heavy combat troops "Peace Keepers"? Or the Army nicknaming a Colt .45 a "Peacemaker"?

Jesus follows this statement with another: "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household." Now earlier, Jesus indicated that it was those opposing the gospel that would turn against the Christians - but here - it's not that clear.

So what do these statements mean? Is Jesus calling for violence in his name? Or is he simply saying that violence will break out - as people oppose the gospel message? I believe he means the latter - that he is not instructing the Christians to engage in violence - but is warning them that they should be prepared for the violence of others against them. This does not preclude defending one's self - but I think Jesus would certainly look down upon initiating an attack.

So does Jesus ever condone violence? I don't think he does from a Christian perspective - although he indicates that violence will definitely be a part of this world - until the End of Time - when he returns and sets things aright again.

The Swine Massacre

2008-09-16T06:13:00.002-05:00

Matthew chapter 8 contains the stories of numerous healings, including: a leprous man, the centurion's servant, and Peter's mother-in-law. While these are great stories, and I've heard a few sermons preached on them, the one that raises the most questions for me is the final healing - of the two demon-possessed men.

The first intriguing part - is when the demons ask Jesus: "What do you want with us? Have you come to torment us before the time?" So my question is: what is "the time?" Some translations put this as "God's appointed time" or something similar, which helps, but I'm still left wondering what it means, and when this time might be. I have a feeling these demons are referring to the End Times, when they know they will be destroyed - and banished forever from the earth.

The next interesting part is where they ask to be driven into the herd of pigs - and Jesus actually complies with their request. Or does he? Yes, they do go from the men and enter the pigs, but Jesus merely tells them to "Go!" - not where they should - or could - go. So is Jesus bargaining with the demons - or simply telling them:"it doesn't matter where you go - as long as you leave me and these men?"

My next question has to do with the fate of the demons - and whether they meant to cause the herd of pigs to drown themselves in the lake. In v28, we saw that the demon-possessed men were so violent that no one could go near them. Why didn't the demons make the pigs behave similarly - to become so violent that no one could go near them? Instead - though - the pigs were killed almost instantly. It makes me wonder if Jesus knew what would happen to the pigs - and that's why he let the demons enter them...

The final verse in the chapter is also interesting - as the people who heard of Jesus's actions - instead of thanking him for liberating the demon-possessed men - the whole town pleaded with him to leave the region - so that they could live in peace (or thier version of it). You have to wonder what they were afraid of - if they were worried that Jesus would slaughter them - just as the pigs had been slaughtered - or if they just completely misunderstood Jesus and what he was doing (or both)...

Who Visited Abraham?

2008-09-13T07:12:00.002-05:00

Chapter 18 tells a great story of 3 men who visited Abraham - and the hospitality that he showed them. But it also raises great questions about who exactly these men were - and if they were, in fact, men.

Take the following selected examples:
v1 says: The Lord appeared to Abraham
v2 says: Three men appeared before Abraham
v10 says: The Lord spoke
v13-14 says: The Lord asked a question
v16: refers to men again
v17 and following: refers to the Lord
v20-21 says: the Lord is going to Sodom to check on their sinfulness
And 19:1 says: 2 angels arrived at Sodom

Taking all these different references into account, we see that the reference to "3 men" in 18:2 cannot be entirely literal. They most likely had the appearance of men to Abraham, but it seems that at least one of them was the Lord in the guise of a man (some would say this is an appearance of Jesus in the Old Testament).

As for the other two, they are called both men and angels. While obviously there are angels who are entirely different beings from humans (this is made clear in numerous verses), the Hebrew word for angel literally means "messenger" - and is also used in the Bible to refer to human messengers who served earthly kings. Generally, we make a distinction between spiritual angels who serve God - and earthly messengers who serve men, but does this always have to be the case?

So who were these men? In the end, it is impossible to know with certainty. And frankly, the Bible doesn't seem to care very much - as the message they bring - and the reaction of Abraham and Sarah to it (along with the events in Sodom of chapter 19) are much more important.

Did Abraham Love Ishamel?

2008-09-13T06:51:00.002-05:00

Based on the treatment that Abraham gave to Ishmael (his son) and Hagar (Ishmael's mother) - I always thought that Abraham was mostly ambivalent to them - that while he did not despise them as Sarah did - that he also did not love them very much. Throughout most of the passages dealing with Ishmael, Abraham seems to treat him more as a servant, than as a son.

But I when I read Genesis 17:20 - I began to revise my thinking somewhat - and saw that Abraham did (at least at some points) take his fatherhood serious. In the middle of God promising to send a child to Sarah and Abraham laughing it off, Abraham makes a comment: "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"

I'm not entirely sure what Abraham was thinking with that statement - whether it was just part of him not believing it possible for Sarah to give birth at her old age - or whether it was him telling God how much he loved Ishmael - that he desired to have the blessings of becoming a mighty nation, etc. - brought forth by this son, and not another. Or maybe it some combination of both...

But even though God brought forth Isaac to fulfill his covenant promises - God did not neglect Ishmael, either. There are two prophecies about him - the first that he will constantly be at war with his brothers (16:11-12) and the second that he will be blessed and become a large and mighty nation (17:20). And if we are to believe Mohammad that the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael, both of these have certainly born true.

What Had Jesus Done?

2008-09-10T06:23:00.001-05:00

I am reading about the Baptism of Jesus this morning, and the standard question kept popping up in my mind: Why did Jesus have to be baptized? The only reason Jesus gives here is: "it is proper." I guess I'm usually so preoccupied with that question, that I can't formulate any others.

But today, I decided that I would put that question aside, which led me to another one: What had Jesus done at this point to deserve God's praise? At the end of the passage in Matthew 3:17, we read a quote from God: "This is my Son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased." Obviously, love can be given from Father to Son without any reason other than the family connection, but saying you are pleased with them usually has a reason. But what had Jesus done, up to this point? According to Matthew, Jesus was born, he went with his family all over the Middle East, and then he came to be baptized. The first two, he didn't have much control over, and the last was something lots of people were doing. So they couldn't have been that significant, in God's eyes.

Think of all things Jesus was NOT doing: He hadn't started preaching yet. He hadn't started healing yet. He hadn't started doing anything outward that we can point to and say: "That's why God is pleased with him." And maybe that's exactly why God was pleased with him then. Because he was humbly following his Father - patiently serving his Lord - always ready and waiting, but never rushing things...

This tells me that God can be pleased with us, even if we aren't doing outwardly great things for him. God is pleased with those who simply follow him - who don't seek the limelight - but only do what he asks - nothing more, nothing less.

My prayer is that we will all hear God say: "This is my child, whom I love, and with whom I am well-pleased."

Name of the Lord

2008-09-08T06:56:00.002-05:00

At the very end of Genesis 4 (verse 26) - there is a very interesting note:
"At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord." (NRSV) The NLT puts is "people began to worship the Lord by name." This seems to say that before then - people were not using God's name...

So this makes me wonder - if the people are just now getting around to using the Lord's name - what did Adam call God when they would walk together in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:8)? What did Abel call God when he sacrificed the fat of his animals (Gen 4:4)? Just wondering...

In the Beginning

2008-09-08T06:38:00.002-05:00

It makes sense that the first day's reading of the Bible Reading Challenge would contain the account of the very first day - when God created the Heavens and the Earth. It also makes sense that we would read some of the account of Jesus' beginnings.

As I read through these passages, I was struck by some similarities:
1. Both purport to give and account of the "generations" of a creation story.
2. They both culminate in the creation of someone very special - someone with a special relationship with God.
3. Adam, Eve, and Jesus were all directly created by God - and not concieved in the normal fashion.

Does this mean that Jesus was somehow a new creation - that his birth was just as significant as the first creation? Does it mean that Jesus was sent to correct the problems of the first creation - like the sins of Adam and Eve (in Gen 3) and thier children (in Gen 4)?

(By the way - I know the answers to the questions above - but I can't fully answer them without turning to later scriptures - so I'll save the answers for when we get to those scriptures. My point here is just to look at the passages we read...)

Gustav Postpones Bible Reading Challenge

2008-09-05T11:47:00.005-05:00

Since Hurricane Gustav hit south-east LA on the day we were to start the Bible Reading Challenge, many people in evacuation or hunker-down mode (including me) did not start their reading. So after talking with some people - and praying about it - I have decided to postpone the start date by one week: to September 8th. A revised reading schedule has been created (by my lovely wife Alisa) that will allow us to catch up with the original plan by the end of October. It will require reading one or two more chapters a day for the next few weeks, but I think it's still doable. If you want to continue with the original reading plan, by all means do so.

Also due to the storm, I have postponed the first Monday Night Bible Study from September 8th to the 15th.

Download the Revised Bible Reading Challenge Schedule PDF

Audio Bibles and Translations

2008-08-26T11:36:00.002-05:00

The two most frequent questions I get asked about the Bible Reading Challenge, apart from ones that I've already addressed here, are:

What Translation should I use?
and What if I would like to listen to the Bible - instead of reading it?

First I'll address the second question: Listening to the Bible is a wonderful thing. You can listen online, get a CD to play in your car, or download an MP3 to your iPod. There are many different translations available by a variety of speakers. Two sites I would recommend for listening online would be:

Bible Gateway
Faith Comes By Hearing (although you have to download and install a special player on your computer for this one).

If you would rather have a CD, or download an MP3, just type "audio bible" into your favorite search engine - and you'll get a multitude of links. One new audio Bible with an all-star cast is The Word of Promise.

As for which translation to use - there are many good ones. I personally use the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), the NLT (New Living Translation), and The Message (by Eugene Peterson). I haven't decided which I'll use for this Challenge (I still have a few days left...)

My advice for selecting a translation is very simple: Find one that you can understand. That's it. It is rare to find a published Bible that has incorrect translations (although they do exist) - so the emphasis should be on your understanding and comprehension. If you have a hard time reading 17th century English, then don't use the King James. If you think a Bible's wording should be proper and dignified, don't use The Message. Find one that you prefer, possibly by using an online resource (like Crosswalk and Bible Gateway), and then read it. Don't let the choices overwhelm you and keep you from reading, though.

Speaking of being overwhelmed - once you decide on the translation, the next choice you'll need to make is whether you need a plain Bible, a Study Bible, or one written for Left-Handed Truckers (just kidding - I hope...). I generally prefer a Bible with few, if any, notes. To me, a lot of notes are just a distraction from the real Words on the page. Always remember that while the verses are inspired by God, the notes, commentaries, and even chapter headings may be incorrect or misleading. While they can often be helpful - I would encourage you to form your own opinions about the meaning as you read the Bible - instead of relying on someone else to tell you what it means.

The bottom line, though, is to just read the Bible. Don't let any of these decisions be an excuse to keep from reading. Just read the Bible - and see what God will do in and through you.

Why are we being Challenged To Read the Bible in a Year?

2008-08-19T11:33:00.002-05:00

Many people have asked me why I am challenging the church to Read through the Bible in a year. The most frequent concern seems to be that many people will not participate - or that they will give up before the end. To me, though, while this may be true for some, that doesn't mean I shouldn't challenge them anyway.

Take the following:
Many Christians do not consistently read the Bible
Many more only read the passages they enjoy or understand
Most have never fully read through the Bible

To me, this is a sad state for Christianity. Why aren't we reading the Word of God? Why aren't we making it a priority in our lives?

The lack of Bibles cannot be an issue - not in 21st century America - when most families (even non-Christians) have more than one Bible in thier house.

The lack of time cannot be an excuse either - as we find time for everything else we want to do, such as watching TV, going to the movies, surfing the web, or even reading other books and magazines.

The only excuse that might hold any validity for me - is the people who say that they don't understand the Bible - therefore they don't read it. I agree that many parts of the Bible are hard to understand - I have trouble with many passages - that's part of why I set up this blog - to talk about the hard issues.

But let's look at this excuse from another perspective: Would you avoid your spouse - or one of your best friends - simply because you didn't understand something they said? Well - some people will - but most of us will ask that person what they mean - we'll investigate further - we'll learn more about them - until we do understand. Shouldn't the same be true for God? Shouldn't we seek to understand what he's telling us?

Personally, I believe that as we read through the Bible, pray for insight and understanding, and talk about our questions and concerns and joyful findings with our Christian brothers and sisters, that we will grow closer to God and more fully understand his will for our lives - and how that will impact our community and our world.

I'm praying that God will bless our church as we read through the Bible. Will you join me in that prayer? AMEN.

Bible Reading Schedule

2008-08-14T14:33:00.006-05:00

This is the PDF version of the Bible reading schedule that we'll hand out in worship in August. You'll notice that there are 2 readings each day - one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament. You'll also notice that there are no readings scheduled for Sunday. This gives you the opportunity to skip a day without getting behind.

Bible Reading Challenge Schedule PDF