“Patriotism no one thinks discreditable; nor does any one deny that war is the romance of history. But inordinate ambitions are the soul of every patriotism, and the possibility of violent death the soul of all romance.”
– William James, “The Moral Equivalent of War” 1910

Jim Wallis writes in God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, “Nonviolence must address what’s happening to Jewish souls as well” (178). In this one simple statement Wallis recognizes something key to any movement which hopes to achieve pragmatic and deictic change; change must achieve a reformulation of ethos not only for those we wish to liberate from oppressive and tyrannical structures but also within the ethos of those who impose such structures. It is not enough to present a “better way” with substantial answers, but this new, “better way” must penetrate deep into cultural traditions reinforced through educational, political, and religious institutions (Wallis 149). To propose change is to insist the paradigm shift within the American identity. But in order to accomplish this significant change, it is not enough to propose only answers, but an intermediary self must be constructed to bridge the gap between whom we are and whom we hope to become.

Thus, Robert Jensen’s argument in his article “Saying Goodbye to Patriotism” touches briefly on the American ethos which says “. . . America is the greatest nation on earth” (6). Jensen suggests that American patriotism is a rejection of peace and justice and thus moving forward toward a truly internationalist society is to debunk the “American mythology about the nobility of our wars and their motivations” (Jensen 1). Jensen argues for the deconstruction of patriotism by suggesting the only two possible definitions, loyalty and dissent, both carry “. . . arrogant and self-indulgent assumptions” about the American identity which ultimately leads to a devaluation of foreign life, property, and culture and the values of America are not uniquely American (Jensen 3). Finally, Jensen
put[s] forward the radical proposition that we should care what the facts are. We should with the assumption that everything about the United States, like everything about any county, needs to be examined and assessed. That is what it means to be a moral person (5).

Essentially, what Jensen attacks in statements such as “America is the greatest nation on earth” and the word “patriotism,” is autonomy. Yet, his proposal, saying goodbye to traditional American Patriotism is incomplete. It is not as simple as wishing a fond farewell to the old self. We must have a vehicle which will transport us to the new. Jensen dismisses rather than transforms.

Jensen’s argument was adumbrated by Sacvan Bercovitch in 1975 with the publication of The Puritan Origins of the American Self. Bercovitch introduces the concept of “’Auto-machia,’ since it evokes both modern autonomy and medieval psychomachia (battle for man’s soul)” as he abstrusely describes the Augustinian dichotomy of opposing wills which, he believes, rests at center of the Puritan identity. Thus the Puritan’s goal in effacing self was to move to complete Imitatio, or imitation of Christ. Through imitatio saint-hood was achieved: an intermediate state of self. Thus the “Puritan vision” of self was affirmed through the “hermeneutics of the American landscape, and nowhere else is the Puritan concept of intermediate identity more strongly affirmed – where intermediacy . . . indicates not a historical limitation but a comprehensive prophetic selfhood” (Bercovitch 151). Thus, American patriotism is not simply rooted in assumption, but in the belief that land itself it the physical manifestation of God’s presence on earth and that the American is “A voice of one calling: ‘In the desert prepare the way for the Lord . . .” (Isaiah 40:3 NIV). Yet we have seen the fulfillment of this intermediary construction. It is our current state.

Today, “atuo-machia,” or the American concept of self, is deeply ingrained in our culture. As autonomy and spiritual conflicts in our nation continue to grow, it is clear that the “drama of autonomous individualistic climbing divorces us from what from what character ethicists call the good, or the telos, or the lager human purpose of life” (Stassen, Gushee 56). Thus, to engage American patriotism, to propose “Character Ethics as a better way of reasoning” is “To counter the corrosive force of modern atomistic individualism” prophetically preached by Ralph Waldo Emerson during the 19th Century (Stassen, Gushee 56). It is Emerson’s natural theology which has led to a post-modernity which encourages the development of autonomous individuals and thereby rejects any moral standard. Post-modern autonomy encourages the severing of cultural, filial, religious, and moral connectedness that Christian or Kingdom ethics encourage, instill, and develop (Stassen, Gushee 56). It suggests intermediate self is not necessary because no evolution of self is necessary.

However, Glen Stassen and David Gushee’s purposed “Four Dimensions of Holistic Character Ethics” is, perhaps, an attempt to create the deictic change which addresses both the fault of the current American identity and the need intermediacy. “The Way of Reasoning Dimension” suggests that reason creates an ethical consistency which affirms virtues “aim[ing] toward discerning and doing what is good for our purpose in life as humans” (60). “The Way of Reasoning Dimension” emphasizes a life of servanthood which subverts post-modern autonomy. To serve the “other” is to begin unwrapping the American identity from the “mythology about ‘how good we are’” (Jensen 7). To adopt a persona of servanthood is to recognize self in the other and redefine self as “we” rather than “me.” Thus the Purtian tradition of self effacement is upheld in that we must “deny [ourselves], take up [our] cross and follow [Jesus]” daily for the good of humanity rather that achieving sainthood (Luke 9:23 NIV). Servanthood thus becomes one characteristic of the intermediate self.

Second, Stassen and Gushee attempt to give readers a “right conception of God” in the “Basic Conventions Dimension” of character ethics. Through this ethical dimension Stassen and Gushee suggest that the “secularizing dualism,” the “gospel of Jesus has no relevance in the world, so all our ethics in world should come from secular sources,” is creating resentment and opposition to justice in our world. Thus the church must become a united force through an interconnected community of believers. (Stassen, Gushee 61). Once these changes, among others, occur the communal and international vision of Jensen, Wallis, Stassen and Gushee becomes a potentiality. Allowing Christian ethics back into the public square means reconstructing the American worldview on the foundation of “well-conceived theological conviction, fundamentally the vision of the reign of God” (Stassen, Gushee 63). In doing so, it becomes possible to claim victory in the “struggle to save ourselves” and the “struggle to save the lives of vulnerable people around the world” (Jensen 8). Thus, at the core of the intermediate self is the need to reassert the evangelical doctrine of sola scirptura. We must have a “clear mental apprehension of His perfections revealed in Holy Scripture” (Pink 6).

Third, we must recognize where our loyalties lie. As Stassen and Gushee illustrate in the “Passions/Loyalties Dimension”, passions are deeply related to our loyalties and interest (63). All forms of patriotism are vested interests in that lands from which we come are deeply connected to the formation of our identity; thus, our difficulty in “saying goodbye to patriotism.” Stassen and Gushee suggest that “We can change our emotions by changing our habits, by encouraging other emotions, or by understanding the causal history of our emotions” (63). But William James suggest in “Pluralism, Pragmatism, and Instrumental Truth,” shifts in truth cannot occur unless an internal mediation between the old and new systems occurs resulting in a new truth” (www.des.emory.edu). Thus, “understanding the causal history” or current ideological American self means beginning the mediation between who we are and the Christocentric self we want to be. This intermediary self must become “sartor resartus” distinguishing between the clothes of American Imperialism and the clothes of Christian justice (Bercovitch 174).

Finally, “The Perception Dimension” suggests that perception shapes ethical action (Stassen, Gushee 65). If Holistic Character Ethics is to effect change in the American ethos, than we must have a clear and defined perception of the context of our actions. We can no longer “speak of ‘them’ being evil and ‘us’ being good, that evil is all out there and that in the warfare between good and evil others are either with us or against us” (Wallis 143). This is “bad theology” as Wallis posits. Good theology, as Stassen and Gushee suggest, is “incarnational discipleship” (65). Incarnational discipleship venerates the humanity of the “other” and sees beyond the ill-conceived notions of other as “evil.” Stassen and Gushee suggest one central area or perception is authority. “What people assume about the powers and authorities of their time and place has a powerful effect on their perception of the context of moral action” (66). Wallis gives insight to this statement by suggesting that Bush saw his presidency as a God ordained event and therefore, much like the monarchs of the medieval age, his actions are justifiable. However, we need to be realistic about what God ordains and “test the spirits . . . because many false prophets have gone our into the world” (I John 4:1 NIV). By using biblical allusion in such a way that scripture is “. . . employed in ways quite different from their original meaning,” our vision is veiled and a right conception of God, justice, America, and the self is lost (Wallis 142). The intermediate self must be purely objective.

Bercovitch’s perspective of the American self sheds light on aspect of patriotism which Jensen glosses over, which Wallis recognizes but has no “better way” of dealing with, and which Stassen and Gushee offer alternatives to, but no pragmatic intermediary with which to bridge the gap. To confront the “American myth” is to attack an embattled notion nationalism which is deep seeded in the fervent religiosity of self and not simply undoing the public understanding of international, economic, and military policy. To institute true “kingdom ethics,” as Stassen and Gushee would have it, necessitates the undoing of centuries of natural theology which has made the American landscape our god. Debunking patriotism is not as simple as acquiescing to authority of the United Nations.

To undo American patriotism is to insist on a paradigm shift within the American ethos. Jensen is right to suggest that we must deal with facts but not merely facts of policy but also facts of self. Stassen and Gushee are right in suggesting that our post-modern, autonomous society rejects all moral standards. Wallis is right to suggest that our leaders use our mythology to mislead and dissuade us from truth. Yet, we cannot simply leap to the end result. The ideal of the communal, cosmopolitan, international society which Jensen, Wallis, Stassen, and Gushee hope to create will be slow in coming. So, instead of saying “goodbye to patriotism,” which, in essence, is saying goodbye to me, we should be saying hello to a much older self founded solely in the principles of “all men are created equal” as our intermediate. This self must adhere to infallible, inerrant, inspired word of God and the principles of the Constitution. We must attempt to give these ideals pragmatic, objective applications remembering that everyone is from somewhere and generally “wouldn’t stand for no knockin’ the place” (O’Henry 13).

Works Cited:

Bandura, Albert. “Pluralism, Pragmatism, and Instrumental Truth.” William James. Emory U, Sept. 2009. Web. 9 July 2010.

Bercovitch, Sacvan. The Puritan Origins of the American Self. London: Yale UP, 1975. Print.

James, William. “The Moral Equivalent of War.” The Best American Essays of the Century. Ed. Joyce Carol Oates. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2000. Print.

Jensen, Robert. “Saying Goodbye to Patriotism.” Witness Magazine March 2002: 16-20. Fuller Online. Web. 21 June 2010.

Life Application Study Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991. Print.

Pink, Arthur W. The Attributes of God. Blacksburg: Wilder Publications, 2008. Print.

Stassen, Glen Harold, and David P. Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Print.

Sydney, William. The Complete Works of O’Henry. New York: Doubleday, Page and Co., 1927. Print.

Wallis, Jim. God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. New York: Harper One, 2005. Print.

Wind, Waves, and Allegory: Representation in Mark 4:35-41.

The Harmon and Holman Handbook to Literature defines Allegory as “A form of extended metaphor in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative are equated with meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. Thus, it represents one thing in the guise of another – an abstraction in that of a concrete image. By a process of double signification, the order of words represents actions and characters, and they, in turn, represent ideas” (12). Mark 4:35-41 is heavily allegorical if we read it as narrative. This is not to say the text in no way relates literal events. We must, however, ask ourselves why Mark includes a story such as this in his Gospel. Is it simply to demonstrate the power and authority of Jesus over all nature? Is it simply to give as many events as possible pointing to the divinity of Christ? On one level, Jesus’ calming of the storm is a clear manifestation of His sovereignty over all creation. Yet, through reading the text in abstract terms, readers are able to interpret another spiritual application which is not only representative of Christ’s sovereignty, but also demonstrates the necessity of the test to prove faith. James, the brother of Jesus, states simply “that testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything” (James 1:3-4 NIV). Through the doubleness of the text, the events of the narrative signify, or point to, the text’s application for the reader.

First, as is often the case, it easy to convince ourselves the storm of the text is parallel with trial. Expressions such as the “storms of life” are deeply ingrained in our culture and used to describe the hardships which so often plague our daily experiences. But I draw a careful and important distinction. Trial is not the same as tempt. Trial, as we learn in the Epistle of James is God’s way of proving our faith or producing genuineness within us. Temptation comes from within and is not part of God’s nature. James writes that we are “tempted when, by [our] own evil desire, [we] are dragged away and enticed” (James 1:14 NIV). This suggests that the disciples’ reaction to the experience in the boat was not the product of internal desire but the common and usual way most of us deal with God’s trials in our own life. It is not uncommon for us to become overwhelmed by daily trials. And when we think that we have experienced the worst, another wave comes crashing down upon us. It is not peculiar for us to cry out “Teacher, don’t you care if we die?” It is not peculiar for us feel that Jesus is unaware of the situation and doubt His sincerity.

Second, and slightly more difficult, is recognizing the difference between the wind and the waves. We must remember that wind causes waves and the only way to overcome the devastating effects of most waves is to turn and face them. Allegorically speaking it is the wind which signifies the trial or the test. The waves speak to all those things which must be overcome along the way to successfully complete the test or overcome the trial. It is when we give into fear and try and run or turn sideways to the force bearing down us is when we experience the full fury of the storm. And it is not surprising that waves inspire fear. The ocean in literature often represents the perilous, the unknown. It human nature to fear what we do not know and any experience which presents danger we avoid. The disciples fear is an understandable product of the waves. The waves present to us all those things which we would rather not deal with; those things which bring with them the greatest difficulty and hardship. Yet, it is the waves which we must face and overcome to fully realize God’s purpose for any trial. Waves can be flaws which God wishes to mend. Waves can weakness which God wishes to turn to strengths. Waves can be sin which God wishes to purge from our lives. We all have waves but it takes a strong wind to make them recognizable.

Wind makes waves. This is a common truth we on windy days at the beach or in the storms which occasionally batter our shores. The wind, however, is not the malicious force which it appears to be in this text. Wind is often related the breath in literature and, breath in the bible, often represents God. We must realize that it is not uncommon for God to stir our souls and challenge our faith. Every once in awhile God must send a good blow to make us recognize those areas which we neglect. Any time the wind causes rough seas the beach is littered with all those things the wind was able to remove from the sea by stirring it up. The wind of Mark 4:35-41 makes very real the disciples lack of faith. The storm was not meant to destroy but highlight what would be necessary for them to complete what God intended for them to do. They would need faith and the needed a good storm to stir it up.

Every storm needs a boat, a simple truth of life. If no one is there to witness the magnificent furry of the storm than the storm has no significance, no one to bear witness to it. Thus, the boat in this storm is the representation of the body of the one who must experience the furry of the storm to understand its significance. Shakespeare give insight to my meaning: “In one little body/ Thou counterfeit’st a bark, as sea, a wind,/ For still thy eyes, which I may call the sea,/ Do ebb and flow with tears. The bark thy body is,/ Sailing in this salt flood. The winds thy sighs,/ Who, raging with they tears, and they with them,/ Without sudden calm will overset/ Thy tempest-tossed body” (Romeo and Julite Act 3:5.130-137). Very often God’s tests are internal. The disciples’ experience of an external force produced internal results. I, however, find that God’s tries me with spiritual or emotional circumstances to motivate me to produce external results. The storm, therefore, rages within me and my body is the “bark” tossed by a spiritual tempest. Much like Juliet is driven to her destruction by emotive forces, God’s tests can toss us about so violently that we may feel overset by the storm. This suggests that God’s tests are never easy. I Corinthians 3:13 state that “fire will test the quality of each man’s work” (NIV). Fire burns! Fire purges! Fire refines! The hotter the fire, the pure we become. And isn’t this the goal, “to be complete, lacking nothing.”

Every boat needs a pilot. Because the boat is a representation of us, some other object, event, or person in the text must represent that force which directs the boat. The only viable option is a sleeping Jesus. And this furthers the implications test. Often, as stated earlier, we feel that God is absent, asleep, and unaware of our circumstance and we cry “don’t you care.” Paradoxically, the opposite is true. Often, it is God who sends the test and logically this would make Him very present, awake, and aware of our trial. I have a feeling that Jesus only slept to see what the disciples would do. He needed to know exactly where they were so that He could continue to grow them. And isn’t this the role of a test, finding out exactly where we are? Once the disciples responded to the test, Jesus knew what they lacked and He knew exactly what he had to do next. Tests work the same way for us if we are open to receiving the results. Often, the test sheds light on our weakness and God teaches us what we need to do to fix it.

Was the Sabbath Created?

C.S. Lewis writes "Our faith in Christ wavers not so much when real arguments come against it as when it it looks improbable -- when the whole world takes on that desolate look which really tells us much more about the state of our passions and even our digestion than about reality (Christian Reflections, Religion: Reality or Substitute). Simply put, faith becomes difficult when we are forced into those moments of self-reflection and solitude which cause us to question the foundations upon which our faith is built. It is easy to believe, as T. S. Eliot posits, when we are persecuted. Persecution makes faith easy. But when our faith comes under attack as a result of our own expectations and ideological definitions of who and what God is, then we are shaken to the core of our spiritual identity. We have all been in these situational trials created by our expectation of when, where and how God is to manifest Himself or rescue us from the tribulation at hand. However, God rarely works according to our expectations. In the Gospels, the Pharisees are taught this lesson on a continuous basis. Their constant attempts to entrap Jesus are not foiled by Jesus' ability to legally reason His way out of each difficult situation, but by clear and defined demonstrations of His manifest power over all things. In front of their eyes, He demonstrates His Messiahship.

Why would the Pharisees find Jesus' demonstrations of power and authority so very troubling? I find the answer very simple and yet full meaningful displacement and mystification. The simple answer is this: The Pharisees were upset simply because Jesus highlighted the limitations of their authority and power. They could not heal nor had they the power to undo the physical and spiritual constraints of the law. Jesus' ability to heal the man with the withered hand in Mark 3:1-6 and the posited question, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save a life or to kill?" emphasize the fact the Pharisees have the power to do neither save nor kill; do good nor do evil. They only have the power to continue to limit the Divine intention of Sabbath rest. They cannot pass law nor define work in such a way as to inspire men to right action. Their constant defining and redefining lead only to the increasing burden, under which, no one is found righteous. In this way, the Sabbath rest becomes a god which must be appeased through stillness and a lack of spiritual productivity. In the legalistic mind of the Pharisees, man was created for the Sabbath.

In contrast, Jesus demonstrates that neither the Pharisees nor those present have a clear understanding of Divine intent. The imperative at the end of Mark 2, "The Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath" makes clear the intent of Sabbath rest. God did not created a day of rest to limit spiritual productivity. The simple fact that the day had been so heavily weighted with restrictions removed such possibility. Yet, Sabbath was created for man implying that man has some power over the day. The day is therefore a day for man to be reflective, contemplative, and focus on Him who has made all things by the utterance of His Word. The day is intended for spiritual productivity and how we are spiritually productive is, in some way, left to us to define. In this way, as is intended, Sabbath becomes a freeing day, a small realization of the freedom we might experience through Christ, and not another day of legal bondage.

Now, an attempt at the hard answer; the one which some commentators shy away from simply because it's really no answer at all. (Perhaps this answer is even sinful? Who knows?) So here it goes: within the context of the Roman occupation of Israel and rule of King Herod, the Jew hopefully awaited the coming of a promised Messiah who comes in glory as a king and to rescue and restore them to the promised land under Messianic rule. This preconception or expectation of who the Messiah is to be and be like created an allegory for which the Pharisees patiently waited for. Paul De Man, a Belgian deconstructionist, writes in Rhetoric and Temporality allegory demystifies and creates metonymic enjambments which are clearly meant to signify "this is that." Yet, Jesus does fit into these neat and tidy allegorical categories which the Pharisees so eagerly created to make the identification of the Messiah a logical sight based process. Jesus did not come to meet their expectations. He was not the part which came to represent the whole of their preconceived notions of Messiah. The incarnation did not happen so that the Law and the Prophets might be justified but fulfilled. Jesus came to show the inadequacies of the Mossaic legal system which could not justify men who could meet the expectations of God. He wasn't as simple as they wanted Him to be.

Jesus came more as a symbol. Symbols, unlike allegory according to De Mann, by nature are fragmentary and often decenter or displace their meaning. Symbols become synecdochal representations. These synecdochal representation, unlike allegory, serve only to mystify, fragment and displace what we hope to be easily understood. In this case, who the Messiah is. Yet, the Pharisees are unable to draw the connection between the incarnate Christ who rules the universe as the Messiah simply because they were looking for a man to come in and kick out the Romans. Their allegory only allowed them to accept strict human constructions and ideals of kingship when they needed to be asserting the loose and unstable enjambments of symbol. Instead of fighting telling the Jewish community when "this" comes it will look like "that" they should have concluded when "this" comes we don't know what "that" will look like, but we will know when we see it. For this reason, they killed the "that" they had been waiting for. They killed Him because He did not meet their expectation simply because He did not come as representative equivalent but as a representative part of a whole.

For modern day readers of fundamental belief, there is little question who Jesus is. For others, their expectations of Jesus quickly subverts Who and what He represents. They have created tidy allegorical pictures of the benevolent Shepard carrying the lamb and have missed out on the factual Christ. Like the Pharisees, we cannot limit Christ to what we think He ought to be and manifestations of His power to what we want them to be. Jesus Christ manifests Himself in our live in very real, and relevant ways on a daily basis. We won't always get His love. Sometimes it will be His reproach, correction, or punishment, but this Him none the less. We must be able to couple our faith with reason and sight to see Him at work in every area of our lives; even the areas we don't want Him to work on. We must avoid letting the Pharisee in all of us kill the work of Jesus in our lives before it is finished simply because it is not being done the way we expected.

But, in the end, I'm just sayin' is all.

It's Not Drudgery . . . It's Amateur Theology!

Oswald Chambers writes, "It takes Almighty grace to take the next step when there is no vision and no spectator - the next step in devotion, the next step in your study, in your reading, in your kitchen; the next step in your duty, when there is no vision from God, no enthusiasm and no spectator. It takes far more of the grace of God, far more conscious drawing upon God to take that step than it does to preach the Gospel" (March 6 My Utmost for His Highest). More than any other time in my life I understand this level of drudgery. More than any other time in my life I feel my walk becoming menial, tedious, hard work. I believed for a time that I was certain of the path God had prepared for me. Yet, circumstances often lead us to a place of uncertainty, especially when faith is at stake. These are the times when no one is looking, no spectator exists to visibly witness manifestations of our faith, no vision persists to encourage and drive our future steps. Times such as these cause me to wonder without purpose, to question every moment and ask "where are You?" But if good may be taken from any period of struggle or discouragement it is this: when faith becomes drudgery, we very often seek God more earnestly.

To explain I offer the personal account. Throughout my life I have sought a place to be "plugged in" in service to my church, my community, and my family. As a teacher, I know that God uses me daily to help guide young people to an absolute morality. I know that I serve my wife and child daily by doing the little things and attempting to demonstrate my love to them in every possible way. I know that these are areas of life given over to Christ and I work as to serve the Lord in all that I do. Yet, when it comes to serving my church I have given up. I go, listen, question, analyze, agree, disagree, and leave without ever saying a word. Over the years I have come to the conclusion that, perhaps, God doesn't use someone like me, at least not at Church. I know that I have developed a knowledge of things through my study of literature and through my personal study of scripture and theology. I have some interesting insights into scripture and I know that God has gifted me in this area. Not that I would ever profess intellectual superiority in this area. (I mean, I can barely spell.) But I would say that I know a little more than most, enough to be dangerous, and I have a passion for learning more even if I have to do it on my own. I am not daunted by numerous books, articles, devotionals and the occasional pieces of bad writing and the more often publicized sources of bad teaching that exist. I love that sites such Monergism.com and PuritanLibrary.com exist.(Monergism is the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration or being born again.)To make a long story short, I think that God has given me a talent and I am looking for a place to use it and I don't think it's the height of hubris to say so and I think there is more than one other person in this world who feels the same.

And it's this perception of the unused to which Chambers writes. The more I think about my circumstances the more I realize that God is preparing me for something. I don't know what or when or how or why but I know that God has a plan. This is why it takes more grace, more of a "conscious drawing upon God to take the next step, than it does to preach the Gospel." It takes perseverance during these times when we must draw upon God. It during these persevering times that we deepen our understanding and knowledge of Him. When we feel neglected and forgotten, we often call out to Him the most. And it is these simple acts which are intended to regain the favor of God that prepare us for what God has next. This is why this period of my life has been amazing. By that I mean I am writing a blog very few read but every typed letter of every word is one more letter deeper into the knowledge and understanding of my God. I don't believe that God has called me to go knock on doors, go to foreign countries, or write the next great theological discourse of our age, but He has called me to know Him. (At some point I will have to write about "know" Him.) And I believe that He has called me to help others know Him.

It's Pink that writes "The foundation of all true knowledge of God must be a clear mental apprehension of His perfections as revealed in Holy Scripture. An unknown God can neither be trusted, served, nor worshipped (The Attributes of God6).(I know, but that's how Pink spells it.)This is why times of drudgery are so important to our faith. Yet, we seldom take advantage of the down to time to do the menial, labor intensive tasks involved in developing a "clear mental apprehension of His perfections as revealed in Holy Scripture." Who really wants to dive into a book called An Introduction to New Testament Theology which doesn't translate the Greek. (Gives new meaning to the idiom.)But this work is so important to our lives, our faith, that it is worth the trouble and the time. I think R. C. Sproul is right to say that we have all been called to be amateur theologians. As Christians we should be engaged in the study of our faith as one who engages in study for pleasure than for gain. In some way, I think this is a manifestation of our love for Christ; when we feel unused, forgotten, neglected, we use the opportunity to get to know Him better so that when the opportunity does arise, we are ready "to give an answer for the hope that is in us." I also think this is why Peter writes 2 Peter 1:3-11:

"His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Notice the uses of knowledge. We have everything we need through our "knowledge of Him." Do we ever think about what that means? I know lots of stuff, mostly useless, but many things are stuffed into my head. Knowing these things does not give me insight into the universe, life, or a deeper understanding anything particular. Yet, knowledge of Christ gives us everything for "life and godliness." Knowing Christ deeply, intimately opens the door to the freedom to live our lives exactly how God wants us to. Knowing Him gives us insight into the inner workings of the universe, human nature, the mind, the heart, and the soul. All the things we naturally seek to know we can know by getting to know Christ. We can even answer the inconceivable question, "what is the meaning of life?" We are not without answers when we seek to know Christ deeply.

Second, notice the list which we must add to our faith: goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, love. I notice that whenever Paul writes of faith he mentions perseverance. I also notice that knowledge is at the top of the list. Without knowledge we can neither persevere nor be godly. The more we understand and have a clear conception of God the more we understand that He's not out to get us. We know that He works as He will and we cannot change it. It as if knowledge subverts petulance. No, knowledge does subvert petulance. Knowledge makes men and women of God who are able to overcome the most severe of circumstances. And when every struggle is overcome our knowledge is deepened. Think of the trials of Job. When he came out on the other side he knew God more clearly and deeply. Think of the Israelites wondering the desert for forty years. God used this time to prepare them to conquer Canaan and to teach total dependence. The more we know, the more we are able to endure. The more we endure, the more we are able to know. I guess it's one of God's crazy cycles of growing.

But, I'm just sayin is all.

More Than an Imperative

Arthur W. Pink writes, “We cannot have a right conception of God unless we think of Him as all-powerful, as well as all-wise (The Attributes of God).” How true this statement is. If we consider the action attributed to God, who could do it unless power over everything was given to that being? To say that God created the heavens and earth and yet assume we have the freedom to choose to do other than His will (if we are truly seeking Him) is ludicrous. This is the importance of “Come out of him!” in Mark 1:25. This simple imperative is more than a command, more than a sentence with an understood you. It is a statement, a treatise of divine and absolute power. Much in the same way “into” in the previous verses demonstrate Christ’s ability to break bonds, transcend limitation, “Come out of him!” is a demonstration of I am. Without this demonstration of power, “His mercy would be but feeble pity, His promises an empty sound, His threatening a mere scarecrow (Pink The Attributes of God).” Without this demonstration of power, Christ would not be who He is.

So let’s take a look at Mark 1:21-32. After much deliberation and asking God “what?” over and over and over, a couple of things came clear to me. The first is that Jesus “taught them as one who had authority” and, the second, the phrase “in their synagogue.” These two statements work together to emphasize two points to me: Jesus possessed something the priests, Pharisees and Sadducees did not, and the synagogue belonged to someone other than God. So what did Jesus posses? The obvious answer in the context of this dialogue is power. The antithesis of this question is the questions “what did the teachers of the law lack?” Again, the obvious answer is power. But why? I think it is simply because they were detached from the true source of power and emphasized following law. What we need to remember is that the law, much like scripture, only has power because God is behind it. When Christ came on the scene, the law only held sway over the people because the “teachers of the law” were able to manipulate it and mold it so that the common people could never be free of it. In essence, the teachers of the law held a spiritual coup and took control of what belonged to God, the law. This same principle is true today. When we detach scripture from God, the only way to give it influence or power is to manipulate the language so that it grants a perceived benefit. Whether this benefit is true or false doesn’t matter; whether this benefit glorifies God, upholds His reputation, or speaks truth is not pertinent. We, in essence, hold our personal coup and use scripture to condemn, condone, or legitimize. This is why Mark implies that the teachers of the law lacked authority, power. They did not recognize the One who spoke power into the law and gave it its authority in the same way that Mark implies Jesus spoke the true power of the law because His understanding of the law came from God.

Looking at the latter statement reinforces the former. “A man in their synagogue” implies, again, the place which was to represent the presence of God’s authority had been usurped by the teachers of the law. Why do we go to church? We go to hear truth and, on some level, we trust that what our pastors, teachers, transmit to us is truth. We seldom question what we hear for various reasons. We don’t know enough; we are afraid; we question the validity of dissent. I imagine the synagogue served the same purpose for the Jewish people. They were there to learn the truth of God. Yet, they were being taught something contrary to truth. We know this because Jesus calls the teachers of the law hypocrites, vipers, whitewashed tombs. The teachers of the law subverted the symbolism of the synagogue and made the synagogue a place to benefit their personal lusts and greed; a place which poisoned the spirit and birthed spiritual death. There exist today many modern examples of this same subversion of God’s holy places. Teachers suggest and imply principles which are not Biblically supported by manipulating language and meaning and, doing so, corrupt the truth; they become whitewashed tombs. I have a feeling the people were amazed because Jesus spoke truth and spiritual life to them.

A third phrase furthers this concept: “A new teaching.” Those there to hear Jesus speak recognized that He was not espousing the same ideas, ideologies, or philosophies the preceding teachers adhered to. “A new teaching” implies a shift and this shift can either be interpreted as a change in direction or, much like shifting the gears of a car, the move into a new gear allowing for greater speed, maneuverability, and control. I am pretty sure it’s bad theology to imply that God is flippant and changes His mind easily so I won’t say the “shift” is a change in direction. I’ll go with the idea that God is changing gears, revealing something new about Himself in the moment. I don’t know how valid dispensationalist theology is and I am no theologian to hold such a debate, but I understand how the idea came to be (thank you J. N. Darby) when I read sections of scripture such as this. “A new teaching” implies that God is not changing his mind but creating a moment of revelation. In this statement, the hearers of Jesus had revealed to them something new about God, about their lives and about their law. They heard in this teaching the fulfillment of prophesy, the beginning of God’s reconciling work on earth. Yet, they were not granted comprehension. Jesus would not allow the demons to speak the truth of who He was so it's safe to assume that He only revealed certain aspects of His divinity that day. This says to me that God wanted to do things in His time, according to His plan. And what is a greater demonstration of power, even greater than casting out demons, than controlling all circumstances, even spiritual circumstances, to reveal who you are in your own time. If we had that power, we would do everything now. God, on the other hand, takes action when the time is right. Power equals self-control and God must be the author of that to.

And this is the fourth demonstration of God’s omnipotence, potestas; He would not let the demons speak, say who He was. I find it ironic, but yet a simple truth in the spiritual realm, that we are slower than Satan to recognize the hand of God at work. The demons are first to call Jesus “Holy One of God” in this gospel and the people are befuddled at best when they hear Him speak. I know this is true for my life. I don’t know how many times God would speak to me and I would say to myself, “what is that noise?” How disturbing that the people in this moment misidentify a powerful demonstration of Christ’s divinity. They see but are incapable of drawing the line between the prophecies and the Messiah. More disturbing still is that I have missed more than one demonstration of God's power in my life. I don’t think Mark realized until he wrote this gospel and God’s spirit of revelation and inspiration were upon him what had happened that day. I bet it hit like a ton of bricks: “He could say shhh! to demons!” What amazing power! But, like always, I’m just sayin’ is all.

"From the Beginning"

C. S. Lewis writes: "Christian ethics, the system which, whether by exalting Faith above Works, by asserting that love fulfills the law, or by demanding Regeneration, makes duty a self-transcending concept and endeavors to escape from the region of mere morality (Christian Reflections)." To be fair, I must place this quote into the old debate concerning society's need to return to a Christian form of morality to save our culture from its doom. I say this somewhat sarcastically. This debate rages today and I agree with T. S. Eliot and Lewis concerning this matter. A liberal post-modern society will, eventually, decay. Eliot argues that liberalism only seeks to satisfy immediate needs and has no end goal in sight. It is liberalism's short sighted nature which eventually leads the liberal society down a moral cul-de-sac. This means that the lack of truth ultimately results in a lack of any type of observable ethical behavior. Both Eliot and Lewis see a need for absolutes which govern behavior, which produce predictable outcomes and which most of all, are not determined by human thinking. Therefore, I think the Christian ethics which Lewis and Eliot both see as a desperate need is an ethics determined from Biblical standards established in the book of Genesis, or from the beginning.

I think about the issue like this: when God created the heavens and earth, He stood back, took a look, and said that it was "good." At the end of every one of His work days, He stood back and said that it was "good." When He created man, He said "let us him in our image." Then He said we were "good." Good here means more than acceptable to me. I think here "good" means without evil, without the ethical concept of bad. Not only was creation to the standards of God's perfection, able to be in His presence (He walked in the garden in the cool of the morning), but it also means that creation existed, at one time, without sin. Yet, God saw fit to give man the only ethical choice on the planet. Don't eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The only way God could give man the ability to chose between right and wrong is if He had already drawn the metaphorical line in the sand. In essence, ethics and morals are of God's design, His creation.

Now the Romantics have generously villainized one of my favorites, the apple, to represent this knowledge of good and evil. Yet, we find that Adam and Eve were not able to keep to the straight and narrow and as a result bring sin into world. But the infestation of sin does not affect all people. Enoch was taken up by the Lord because of his righteousness and Abraham’s faith was counted to him as righteousness. Some in the midst of the existence of sin were able to maintain a behavior God found acceptable and pleasing. However, I don’t think these individuals found it within themselves. I think they lived by a transcendent morality. A morality they recognized to be governing all they could see. In other words, they realized a God more powerful than they or any other recognized force on the planet existed and was watching, looking for someone to exemplify. I don't think they lived without sin, Moses struck the stone three times and Abraham slept with Hagar. Both are examples of sin or a lack in moral judgment. But they were able to live a life dedicated to living by God's standard. The more vigorously they obeyed the more they transcended human limitations. Thus faith equaled righteousness. More faith, less sin.

In the same way, when we think about our own ideas of right and wrong what do we use as the touchstone, the standard by which we test all things to judge their purity and correctness? For some of us, we turn to scripture and prayer and make few moral or ethical decisions without input from our Creator. For others, they simply think that moral and ethical decisions are a matter of preference and individual choice. This latter form of thinking leads us into dangerous ground. In my study of scripture I have found that many moral and ethical concepts are specifically stated as good or evil; others are encompassed by Biblical principles which translate very directly into all areas of our lives. When we deal with homosexuality the Bible is specifically clear that the behavior is an abomination to God. Yet, we are in no way given the right or privilege to condemn or neglect those who practice homosexuality. Paul established the principle when writing of the Nicolations. They believed something false of Christ yet Paul commanded Christians to speak truth to them in love. The principle translates for us. We are not to condemn those who practice or believe a false teaching, but speak truth into their lives with all the compassion and love of Christ. Thus the ethical choice for us is to love them as Christ loved the church and be willing to give our lives for them. This doesn't mean that we condone, accept or allow sin to carry on. We would hope that through the constant demonstration of love and truth, Christ would affect a change in each life and bring them ever deeper into a life of faith.

Likewise, when I hear statements made those who profess the name of Jesus such as “My body is just a shell; God doesn’t care. It’s what inside that God cares about” I am concerned for the ethical condition of not only our society but our church. We learn from the Romantic aspect of the Bible that God is concerned with every aspect of our lives. When Adam and Eve brought sin into the world, they were punished but God cared for their need, clothing. When God allowed Job to be tested, He restored Job and blessed him beyond his imagination (my conjecture). When Paul was in prison, God was there. When John was boiled in a pot of oil, God was there. All throughout the Bible stories are filled with the presence of God in the midst of suffering. This tells me that God cares for both our spiritual and physical conditions. God cares so greatly for not only our spiritual and emotional conditions but also our physical conditions that He often provides for the betterment of our health through doctors. But I think that he draws the line at the frivolous. Biblically speaking the principle is clear, if we do so that we may be noticed by men, then that is our reward. So the principle states that intent, motive, is at the core of any ethical decision. If we do to honor God, we are right. If we do to impress, we are wrong.

Some are asking at this point, what does any of this have to do with Christian ethics? The answer is simple. Sometimes what we believe to be right and wrong is not always what God has in store for us. Some would think that one who spends time in a smoke shop reading scripture or theological works and talking is engaged in unethical behaviors. Yet, much like Curtis, I have some great opportunities to share the Gospel in those settings. The example has been set. Christ engaged in what would be considered unethical behaviors. He associated with tax collectors and prostitutes and consistently subverted the authority of the priests. Sometimes we may have to go where we are uncomfortable in order to do what God wants of us. Don’t get me wrong, God would never lead us into a place of temptation but He will lead us into some places that we would never expect His presence. Who would think God would be in a smoke shop, or that God would use us while we out to dinner with friends.

The point is that sometimes what we think is right or what we think is wrong we sometimes used to wall off the presence of God. Lewis’s point is that Christian ethics is outside any of our notions of right and wrong. God will use us where He will and do with us as He pleases. I have had conversations about God and witnessed in the most obscure of places and the places I would never expect that God would have me speak. Part of ethics understands that God’s definitions of right and wrong are not ours. He has given us clear examples of what is right and wrong and we know that we must defend the reputation of Christ at all costs. This means to live a life that is above reproach; something that I have never done successfully. But than again, God chose someone like Saul to write the foundations of Christian theology.

R. C. Sproul describes the issue like this: when get into our car, start it up and begin to back down the drive, we don't question if the car coming toward is real. We know it is and would never pull into traffic unless it was absolutely safe. The same is true of truth. Sometimes society tells us truth doesn't exist, truth is what we make it. No right, no wrong. But the simple fact is that truth does exist and the point Lewis is attempting to make is that we don't determine what that truth is. We can no more shape, influence, or create truth than we can change the rotation of the earth. Morality is therefore not a human creation but divine. We can only call something good because God called it good first. We only know right from wrong because God created them. In other words, ethics and morality are transcendent concepts not because they are ethereal in and of themselves but because they come from the mind of God. The one thing I've noticed about this issue is the more my life is governed by God's absolute rights and wrongs the more free I become. My life is not complicated by the "if then" dilemma's of relative truths. And the best part of all is that I always know where I stand with God, my wife, my friends, my family. I can predict how they will respond when I come to them with a problem, a mistake I've made, or some dumb thing I've done and know that I won't be condemned by them or judged. I know they will tease me some, but they will always support, forgive, and encourage not because its situational but because its always the right thing to do. Not because they have had a moral epiphany but because they've encountered a truth that has been from the beginning.

I have no idea if any of this makes sense or if any of this relevant to our faith, but, then again, I'm just sayin' is all.

Which is more? In or into?

St. Augustine poses the question, "Or do you who contain all things have no need to be contained by anything further, since you fill all the things you fill by containing them?" Simply put this is a question of, "is God in all things or are all things in God?" To begin to answer this question we must look at the preposition in. By definition, "in" suggests inclusion, limits, or confined space. If God is "in" all things, then He is confined and limited to those things which contain Him. If all things are in God, then all things fall subject to the sovereignty of God. Augustine's question then supports that idea that Christ is "in" us because we are in Him. Or, rather, He is "in" us not because we have the capacity in our humanness to contain any part of Him, but because He has chosen to move "into" us.

I think the answer to St. Augustine's dilemma is that God's immensity is such as to contain all things, including us. Which brings to mind a couple of things which must be considered: how then can we say Christ lives "in" us? To say that we are "in" Christ is simple based on a few facts. Christ's crucifixion and Resurrection pay the penalty of our sins and we are therefore ransomed to Him. Christ is divine and God and therefore contains all things. To say that we live in Christ is to emphasize the nature of God to encompass all that He created and loves. But the idea of Christ "in" us opens the door, if we are not careful, to our humanity limiting Christ's sovereign power.

But the preposition "in" is all over the Bible and this line of argument is seeping with fault and weakness. I only say that I am thinking out loud, hoping to inspire others to ponder more deeply the nature of our God. I would like us all to read scripture with a more a more critical eye. Not to find fault, but to find the rich deepness of a God who has done so much for each of us. It is not that I disavow and reject the notion of Christ living in me. I readily hope that I am worthy of such privilege. I seek to understand, as Augustine wrote, the "immensity of our God!" If He is too big for me to contain Him, and to powerful to be limited by my finite understanding of Him, and to powerful to be constrained by my lacking faith, then God, my God, must be, nay, is something more than what I know. And I want to know what I do not know. So I ask, which is more: in or into?

I think that the simple statement, Christ living in me, most often used to emphasize the Spirit's indwelling, has led some to think that they, perhaps, possess the power to mold God into what they wish to make Him. This is why Christ has become so many different ideas and is transfigured to meet so many different conceptions. Yet, I know that Christ is one thing, God. I know that I must understand Him in some way that allows me to draw near to Him in an ever deepening way. And this is the challenge for, not only me, but all of us. And this is the trouble with reading scripture. Sometimes, the truth of who God is, Christ is, doesn’t fit “in” with the way we live or with what we want the truth to be. We, perhaps, like Christ better when purged the temple of that which was unpleasing to God. Or, we like Christ better when says, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” (Loose paraphrase) So we focus on the parts that we like best about Christ and we make Him what we want. We begin to limit Him to what we think God should be. We like the God who is loving, merciful, compassionate, and forgiving and neglect the fact that God is also just, powerful, jealous, and vengeful. So saying Christ lives in me can be saying I've allowed the Christ of my making to reside in my imagination.

In turn, scripture falls prey to same mode of thinking. If God is not sovereign than neither is His word. If his word does fit "in" to our way of thinking than it is simple to change it so that it will. Perhaps this why Mark changes the little things like prepositions when relating to us the baptism of Christ. The people were baptized "in" the Jordan and Christ "into" the Jordan. The people were limited to the Jordan's space, confined to it and did not possess the capacity to move beyond the river's water to the Promised Land. They become to us, as readers, a metaphorical Moses. Without Christ we have all struck the stone too many times and, thus, we can only go "in" the Jordan. But this is true of humanity. We are limited and confined to what we are. We are incapable of rescuing ourselves. We are incapable of saving our souls. We lack the power to come out of the waters of baptism clean from our sin without Christ. This is why we can only go in the Jordan. In fact, the Jordan’s metaphorical drowning of our spiritual selves is much like the condemnation we experienced under the law. Without Christ nothing can save us. Neither the law nor can we pass across the Jordan from the land of sinful bondage to the fulfillment of God’s promise.

However, Christ is baptized "into" the Jordan. This small change has a large implication. By definition "into" suggests movement, being on the inside of or moving toward. By stating that Christ is baptized "into" the Jordan, Mark suggests to us that Christ is not contained by the river but has the capacity to move beyond it, into the Promised Land. Christ's baptism into the Jordan suggests to us that Christ takes upon Himself all that the river contains and, symbolically speaking, the river contains what is washed away through baptism. Christ baptism is the symbolic moving toward. By His baptism into the river He takes one step closer to us; He accomplishes what we could not. He takes a dip into our sin and comes out clean. Mark states simply by the addition of two letters that Christ’s adoption of our sinful nature had begun. Mark tells us through “into,” as Crutis stated, that Christ is taking on the story.

In some way, I think this is the better way to state it: Christ comes into us. As Christ comes "into" us, He is not limited by us but takes possession of us. Yet, Christ coming "into" us suggests all the right responses of thought. If He comes "into" us, than He is bigger than us, more capable of doing on our behalf. If he is "in" us, than He is limited by the short comings of our faith. If He is "into" us, than He has the ability to be beyond our comprehension and understanding. If He is "in" us, than He is limited to our finite imaginations. If He is "into" us, than He is unbound, limitless.

For me, this is the power of Christ. He has the power to break limitations and be “in”-understood. He spent forty days in the wilderness but He came out again. The wilderness could only contain His humanity but his divinity gives Him the power to break through the boarders of wilderness. He was "in" hell but rose on the third day. The Creed of our faith states that "He descended into hell" as if He were just passing through. He broke free from all those things which bind, restrict, limit, constrain, or contain what we are, what we are condemned to be and did a work we cannot begin to fathom. As Christ moves into us, we then are broken and the pieces of what we were are reassembled into what we are meant to be. We are no longed limited but limitless, bound but unbound. It’s akin to Christ granting the keys of heaven to Peter. Through Christ that which held power over us becomes subject to us. And I don’t think this is Christ “in” but Christ working into us the truth of His immensity, power and grace.

I know that I am simply playing with semantics and that some would say "it all means the same thing." But does it? I guess the question is not how we want to construct our God by suggesting that He is containable by saying that He is in me or in all things, but how deeply do we want to understand Him by exploring His limitlessness by saying we are in Him. To say that I am in Him allows me wonder throughout Him and explore Him and get to know Him. God already knows me and I am too small for Him to be very comfortable. For me, I am the guy who says I have accepted Christ into my life and I found my identity in Christ. I like Him big; bigger than my worst day or worst fear. I like Him bigger than best day and most enjoyable memory. But, than again, I'm just saying is all.