In the sermon I tell the story of the painting.  Hope you enjoy it.  LISTEN HERE (right click & save as to download)

To be Christian is to be human in a new way – to be fully human -  and it requires a decision to give oneself to the way of Jesus.  This decision is something only the individual can make.  It can’t be done for us and it costs all of us.  It requires us to take our own existence as seriously as God does.

I also recognize that it is getting harder to do in our contemporary context. I am a loud critic of simple dualism (constantly contending with my Evangelical associates)  – but even I must concede when there are two main schools of thought that have set themselves up in opposition to each other.  I buck the ‘spectrum’ thinking like Liberal v. Conservative (as if those were the only two options) in almost every circumstance. However, when it comes to reading the Bible, it is tough to avoid the set of major trenches that have been dug on either side of this narrow road.

 The first group reads the Bible in what is called a ‘straight forward’ way and while they spend a lot of time with the text, there is little acknowledgement of what is going on behind the text. This group reads the Bible primarily devotionally, preaches exegetically and views it as not just instructive but binding for all times and places.

In my interactions with this group, there is little awareness of hermeneutics (in may cases they may have never heard the word before) and even less willingness to engage in scholarship that does anything behind the text.

The second group engages in Historical-Critical methods. They are willing to look at things like redaction (later editing). They don’t harmonize the Gospels into one Gospel. They are willing to acknowledge that Matthew and Luke’s conception, birth and subsequent details do not line up. They understand that while the story of Daniel happens in the 5th century BC – it was not written in the 5th century BC. They joke about Moses writing the 1st five books of Bible (how did he write about his own death?).

 Lately I have been engaging books like :

How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now by James L. Kugel

To Each Its Own Meaning, Revised and Expanded: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application by Stephen R. Haynes

Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages by Jaroslav Pelikan

She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse by Elizabeth A. Johnson

Sexism and God Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology by Rosemary Radford Ruether

 Over the last 4 years, it has become painfully clear to me that we have a problem when it comes to reading the Bible. Simply stated, those who spend the most time with the Bible know less about it but make greater claims for it than those who do more scholarship on it but may have little faith in it. 

I was listening to a seminar on the Historical-Jesus and talking to several friends of mine who do Historical-Criticism, here are 3 sentences that no evangelical I know even have ears to hear:

• Paul didn’t even write that letter
• Jesus probably didn’t say that sentence
• The Bible is wrong about this

I get in trouble for saying much much milder things about the literary device of the virgin birth, the prophetic concern of Revelation which is limited to the first 2 centuries CE, and  Jesus being ironic about ‘bringing a sword’. Can you imagine what would happen if I thought that Paul didn’t write the letters that are attributed to him, that Jesus did not utter the red-letter words we have recorded in the gospels or that the Bible was wrong about something?  I can’t.

So how does a moderate engage Biblical scholarship without stumbling over Historical-Critical pitfalls and Historical Jesus land-mines?  The thing that I hear over and over is

“Just stick with N.T. Wright. He has navigated the gulf for you”

Now, I love N.T. Wright as much as the next emergent evangelical (especially his Everybody series) … but I am as unwilling, on one hand, to forego the best and most comprehensive stuff (like Dom Crossan’s work on Empire) as I am, on the other hand, to subscribe to the inane prerequisites of the Jesus Seminar.

What I would really like to see is a move within the emerging generation that is tenacious about engaging contemporary scholarship while fully embracing the kind of devotional passion that the innerant camp demonstrates  – all the while avoiding the fearful and intimidating chokehold that camp utilizes to squelch innovation & thought.

I want the next generation to both find life and direction in the scriptures and also to not have to read the tough parts with their fingers crossed behind their back.

a hopeful moderate – Rev. Bo C. Sanders

For those who do not want to scour the comments to find the links to other resources:
Daniel Kirk’s book  “Jesus have I loved but Paul?”
Ben Witherington’s  book list   

I never struggle to believe in God. I believe in the deep core of my being. I have faith in my bones. I breath this stuff. I am filled with Holy Spirit and that gives purpose to my day and direction to my life.

I never doubt the reality of the Christian faith … until I listen to a conservative like John Piper or Marc Driscoll talk. Then, it is all too apparent to me that we are (at least partially) projecting our greatest hopes and dreams onto the screen of the heavens. We are outsourcing our fears and evils onto a cosmic bad guy called the devil. We have created a galactic father figure in the sky (paging Dr. Freud).

It is so clear when Piper talks that it makes me want to retreat into the post-liberal work of George Lindbeck!  

Xenophanes is famed to have said:

“If oxen and horses and lions had hands and were able to draw with their hands and do the same things as men, horses would draw the shapes of gods to look like horses and oxen would draw them to look like oxen, and each would make the gods bodies have the same shape as they themselves had.”

It gets boiled down to “If horses had gods – they would look like horses.”

Most days I can stave that off. I can avoid the haunting suspicion and nagging doubt … but what Piper does is create a God in his own image – there is no other way to say it – it is idolatry.

So what? you may ask. Why even bother with it?  Because, I believe that there really is a God.

C.S. Lewis wrote a poem one time called “a footnote to all prayers” (it references Pheidias who was  a legendary statue maker in the ancient world) 

Footnote to All Prayers

He whom I bow to only knows to whom I bow
When I attempt the ineffable Name, murmuring Thou,
And dream of Pheidian fancies and embrace in heart
Symbols (I know) which cannot be the thing Thou art.
Thus always, taken at their word, all prayers blaspheme
Worshipping with frail images a folk-lore dream,
And all men in their praying, self-deceived, address
The coinage of their own unquiet thoughts, unless
Thou in magnetic mercy to Thyself divert
Our arrows, aimed unskilfully, beyond desert;
And all men are idolators, crying unheard
To a deaf idol, if Thou take them at their word.

Take not, O Lord, our literal sense. Lord, in thy great
Unbroken speech our limping metaphor translate.

This is why we must acknowledge what it is we are doing when we pray, when we preach, and when we practice. We are doing the best we can with words, symbols, sounds and images. But if those images are solidified and codified past their point of original artistry, mysticism and metaphor – then it becomes something deadly to the soul and dangerous to the one seeking the real and living God revealed in Christ.

They wander through theological frameworks, eschatological expectations and process potential for a greater engagement.

Translation: Tripp sings and then they talk about the meaning of the song … along with the week’s news through a theological lens.

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom God is pleased”  (NAS)

It is beautiful in its simplicity.

I’m not trying to make this into a three point sermon, but it does seem to me that there are three interesting things said here:

God is pleased with us. That strikes me in a post ‘sinners in the hands of an angry god‘ era. Now, maybe someone wants to say that god was pleased with us before we killed his kid and rejected the gift… but that is not how I’m reading it here. Why is God pleased with us? Is it because god is gooder than we have been told? Probably. Is it because of something within God and maybe not within us? Possibly. But the bottom line is that God likes us and in Christ is well pleased with us! That is is a Christmas gift worth unwrapping.

Peace on Earth is God’s intention. God wants peace on earth. The angel said so. The sad part is that many Christians will argue with me about this. Fortunately, they probably disagree with part one (that God is pleased) as well … so you have take that as a whole package.

The Glory of God is peace on Earth. This is God’s house and we are God’s people. The state of your house and welfare of the people who live in it reflects something about you. The state of the earth and the welfare of the people who live in it reflects something about God. Now, people who emphasize the transcendence of God portray God as being so holy that God can have nothing to do with humanity’s sinfulness. The problem is that Luke 2 is about incarnation and God becoming one us. God is not just in the highest – as of Luke 2, God is also in the lowest.

So to you I say Merry Christmas! I join the Angel to say Peace on Earth! Goodwill to all mankind! For this is the Glory of God!

this was inspired by episode 34 with John Dominic Crossan and his book “the First Christmas”. 

To be a Christian is to hold Jesus in highest esteem. Even more important, it is to live as Jesus’ follower and as one who believes that in following Jesus one is also serving God. According to the synoptic gospels, people in his day, marveling at his words and deeds, called him “Lord.” The great question then was whether he was the expected one, the Messiah, or, in Greek, the Christ.

For his disciples, the resurrection appearances of Jesus settled these questions. Jesus was definitely Lord, and definitely Messiah or Christ. Although much that was expected of the Messiah had not happened, the title Christ almost became part of Jesus’ name or a virtual synonym. Jesus’ was God’s beloved son, chosen by God for the salvation of all who followed him.

Paul developed these ideas. As was expected of the Messiah, Jesus was a descendant of David, and through his resurrection he came to be, or to be recognized as, the Son of God. Jesus fulfilled God’s mission by opening the doors of salvation to all, including the Gentiles. Jews had been seeking salvation by obedience to the law, but this did not work. By his faithfulness to God even to death Jesus provided another way. Jews and Gentiles alike could participate in that faithfulness. This meant that they would suffer and die with Jesus. God accepts that participation as righteousness. Those who thus participated are reconciled with God and will also participate in Jesus’ resurrection.

This is truly an exalted picture of who Jesus was and is and of Jesus’ work for God and on our behalf. There is a heavenly dimension in that the resurrected Jesus is no longer an earthly figure but a heavenly one. But Jesus remains unquestionably a human being. “Messiah,’ “Son of God,” “Lord,” and “Savior” are all human titles. The resurrected Jesus is the first fruit of the transformation in which we are all to participate.

There is no suggestion that Jesus belongs in another realm as a divine being alongside God the Father. The thinking of Paul remains in the fully monotheistic tradition of Judaism.

Now in Colossians we are confronted with a very different picture. A generation has passed, and the Rubicon has been crossed. The faithful are now predominantly Gentile. Paul is the great leader, virtually the founder, of the Gentile church, and believers are eager to claim his authority for what they say. But their ways of thinking are no longer Jewish. The sharp distinction between the one Creator and the many creatures has faded. Jesus is the primary focus of their thought. He, not the emperor who claims their worship, functions as their God.

They still affirm the God whom Jesus addressed as Father. But the emphasis is now on the intimate, indeed insoluble, relation between Jesus and God. All things on heaven and earth have been created through Jesus and for Jesus. “In him all things hold together.”

To Jews of that time and to us today, it is impossible to think that a person inhabiting a human body could function in these cosmic ways. Probably that was never quite the intention. “Jesus” had come to name not only the human figure about whom we read in the synoptic gospels but also a divine being who temporarily inhabited a human body and in that role died on a cross for our sake. But there is less clarity in this Colossians passage about this distinction than in the prologue of John where it is clear that the everlasting Word of God became a human being in Jesus. There is no preexisting divine Jesus.

Even John is not as clear as it might be about the distinction between the human being Jesus and the Word that became flesh in him. The creeds likewise blur this distinction to the great detriment of Christian faith. Jews could see God’s Power, God’s Spirit, or God’s Wisdom manifest in a human being. Paul affirmed this of Jesus. If we believe, as I strongly do, that something of God is present in all God’s creatures, there is certainly no problem in emphasizing the rich and full way, certainly distinctive and possibly unique, in which God was present in Jesus. But we need to retain the distinction between the divine that was incarnate in Jesus and the human being who was partly constituted by that incarnation. In Paul the distinction is generally clear. In Colossians it is badly blurred.

The great danger of this blurring is that Jesus’ humanity be lost. Jesus became for many Christians a God walking around in human form. Fortunately, there were many Christians who resisted this loss. Antioch was a great center of the ancient church and of its teaching. There they clung to such formulations as that of the divine indwelling a human being. This is far more intelligible, far more faithful to Paul, and far healthier for the church. And throughout the whole controversy in the ancient church about the nature of Jesus it prevented the obliteration of Jesus’ humanity.

But those who in fact worshipped Jesus insisted that Jesus was not only the human being indwelt by God but also God. And over the centuries this confused and confusing idea has played havoc with Christian teaching. Jesus’ humanity has too often been swallowed up in Jesus’ deity.

If this had not happened, Jews would not have been so profoundly alienated from Christianity. There would have remained the dispute as to whether salvation comes through obedience to law or participation in the faithfulness of Jesus, but this could have continued as a debate that might prove fruitful for both parties. Christians had no business asking Jews to compromise their monotheism. Mohammed, who had the highest appreciation for Jesus as the greatest of God’s prophets before the revelation of the Qu’ran, might well have become a Christian. At least the mutual enmity of Christians and Muslims would have been greatly eased. Perhaps both Jews and Muslims might have learned from Christians to understand more fully God’s sacramental or incarnational presence in the world.

But all of this is what might have been. What has in fact been is that neither Jews nor Muslims could appreciate a Christianity that compromised God’s unity, even if it claimed that its teaching of three divine persons did not do so. What has in fact been is that many have been alienated by a teaching that places believing very doubtful ideas about Jesus over following him in humble service even when that entails sharing in his suffering.

For several centuries now Christians, especially Protestants, have been engaged in rescuing the human Jesus from his de-humanization by the church. Unfortunately, like many needed reactions, it has often gone too far. Humanizing Jesus has often meant reinventing him in the image of contemporary ideals, on the one hand, or in a negative light, on the other. Almost always it has separated him from “the Father” whose presence his followers saw in him.

Jesus is not alone in being subjected to this treatment. It seems to be important for us to bring the most admirable people down to our size. I believe that there are human beings who are truly remarkable in diverse ways and that humanizing them should expand our image of humanity rather than reduce them to fit a small one. I believe that we can and should say things about the fully human Jesus that we say of no one else. Being unique does not make one less human.

For that reason, despite my heavy critique of the confusion of deity and humanity that I find in this passage in Colossians, I also find much to appreciate. I have taken as my text verse 19: “in him the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” In my view the more fully God dwells within us the more fully we are human. Precisely because God dwelt so fully in Jesus, Jesus shows us what humanity in its fullness can be.

Our recognition of God’s presence in Jesus is also our assurance that God is like Jesus. Far from condemning us for our sins and failures, God loves and forgives. In the language especially emphasized in this passage we are reconciled to God. If we participate in Jesus’ faithfulness, there is nothing left for us to do.

We can come to God with the assurance that we are already fully known and accepted as we are and therefore can open ourselves in responsiveness to God’s inward call. In Jesus we learn that while we are secure in our relation to God, following our calling is not a path of safety in human terms. There is no assurance that our ventures in service of the weak and the poor will succeed, but there is assurance that God affirms them and uses them beyond our knowledge. God used even Jesus’ death for our salvation.

The author of Colossians expressed his devotion to Jesus in language some of which proved harmful in later centuries and in different contexts. We can learn from that to be careful that our formulations of our devotion not put others down. But we need equally to know that it is not the strength of our devotion that is dangerous to others, but only its mis-description and misunderstanding. We need to find in our time and for ourselves the way to express no less devotion, ourselves now, than the author of Colossians expressed in his time and place.

* This and more John Cobb HERE

I threw out the following three ideas but thought that a wiki-approach might be really helpful – I am a big fan of the collaborative approach.

• Look into “prolepsis” as an ancient literary device. Don’t let them tell you it was simply foreshadowing. Wolfhart Pannenberg talks about Jesus as a proleptic event.

So the church is not the kingdom. The church is NOT the kingdom come. The church  does not usher in the kingdom (post-millennial). Only God can bring the kingdom.
The church is a response – a group of people responding to and imitating what was revealed in God’s proleptic event.
Jesus is a picture of how it will be when God comes in fullness.

• You could also pair this with something like Stanley Hauerwas in chapter 6-7 of “Peaceable Kingdom” where he says that the church (who he agrees is not the kingdom) is a group of people who live lives in such a way that they are worthy (have the right to) tell the story. We tell the story with our lives and this is crucial! …  for the church is the world’s only opportunity for the world to figure out that it is the world! By showing the face of Christ we become like a mirror where the world sees itself AS the world (in contrast to Christ).

or

• you could focus on the fact that in the Bible, where it says that we are Ambassadors for Christ (reconciliation) that (according to seminary friends) the word ambassador is actually a verb. We are ambassador-ing -  for that which we are VERBING is not our own work , it is God’s work and that which God alone has done (and can do). We are simply VERBING what has been done on our behalf – it does not originate with us or culminate with us … we simply play our part as ambassador-ings.

That is my 3 cents.  Whatcha got?

Ohhh I don’t preach from a script and when I listened to it back I realized I should have been more clear on one point.  I mentioned that in some situations an unjust system could be so distorted that even the victims support their own victimization.  There is a longer story I play with, but I mentioned females in Afghanistan believing that they should have a lower status than men ‘because the Koran says so.’  I should have been clear and said that that is an interpretation of the Koran and NOT the only one.  In fact, the day before I was reading an article on Riffat Hassan (a Pakastani, Feminist Muslim theologian) where she makes the point that the culture and NOT the Koran is the source of patriarchy.  She says, ‘Not only does the Koran emphasize that righteousness is identical in the case of men and woman, but it affirms, clearly and consistently, women’s equality with men and their fundamental right to actualize the human potential that they share equally with men.’  (Taken from an article in ‘After Patriarchy‘)  Any way, with all the stupidness going on with the NYC mosque I wanted to be clear that I do not believe the holy book and the religion is necessarily sexist.  I only mentioned the example because my church invests money in building schools for girls in Afghanistan.

This sermon was given April 26th at Ridge Road Baptist Church in Raleigh, NC.

The biblical text for the sermon is Luke 24:13-35. As I read the story of the Emmaus Road encounter, episodes began to run in my mind about the people in my life who, by loving me, awakened me to the real tangible presence of Christ. The parable I wrote for this sermon is rather localized. It certainly has a ‘southern aroma,’ but you should have an easy time making the imaginative adjustments in your own mind to fit your context.

I had a great time writing the parable over the period of a week. I got attached to the characters and would wake up some days eager to discover where the story would go. Any good story will give you characters that you have an easy time connecting to. We all know someone like Karen and her Mamaw, even if the circumstances are different from the one I present in the story. I hope you connect with this parable, and like those we find in the gospels, I hope it leads you into questions that you can walk with and grow from for a little while.

Thanks for the listen.
Deacon Zach

This is the audio from my sermon a couple weeks ago in California.  Since it is only 15 minutes I like to think of it as a ‘spiritual reflection,’ because I tend on other occassions to just be getting started.  Then again it was good enough to get me a job. It was fun to preach on our failure to see God when the text was perhaps the most famous theophany in scripture.  You can get the prayer at the end here.

God’s Good News Platform and Our Place in it

Jeremiah 7:1-8
Mark 1:1, 9-15

Our texts for today focus on three of the most memorable figures in scripture.  The prophet Jeremiah who wept, prayed, preached, and proclaimed the Word of the Lord before, during and in the second exile of God’s people.  And then there is John the Baptizer who caused a stink preaching about God’s judgment of Herod and those who were A-OK with the way things are.   Lastly we have Jesus, the rabbi from Nazareth who went around Galilee stirring up a ruckus about the Kingdom of God while the Roman Kingdom was in charge.  All three of these figures were spokesmen for God, people who gave contemporary commentary on the world, giving calls, challenges, and criticisms from God.  When you heard one of these rambunctious fellows speak you heard God’s platform and were left to decide how to respond.

Why platform you might be asking, isn’t that a political word?  Yes it is and any good biblical scholar will tell you that that is exactly what the words of these three men would have been heard as, religious and political rhetoric.  Back in the day there wasn’t any separation of church and state, so the idea of them being separate would have been weird, but today many faithful Christians read the scriptures with glasses that eliminate God’s Platform-ing from their eyes.

For example, look briefly at the Jeremiah text.  He shows up in the Temple near the beginning of his ministry and says WATCH OUT, GOD CAN’T HANDLE WHAT YOU ARE DOING and IS LEAVING THE TEMPLE UNLESS, “you truely amend your ways and your doing.”  Now listen to what God’s prophet asks the people to do while speaking in the Temple:
act justly with on another
do not oppress the alien
do not oppress the orphan
do not oppress the widow
do not shed innocent blood
AND if you do these things you are practicing idolatry because to truly know Yahweh is to know God’s preferential option for the marginalized in every society and situation.
Now that is a platform, God’s platform.  They didn’t listen, they ignored and imprisoned Jeremiah for bringing politics into religion and found new prophets.  Surprisingly those new prophets didn’t make it in the bible.

We are going to talk some more about John the Baptist and Jesus, but first I want to emphasize two things.  You can be political without being partisan, so relax and don’t worry about there being any endorsement coming.  In scripture when prophets and saviors make it to capitol hill they are usually on trial and end up dead, not elected.  God is neither a republican nor a democrat.

Second, and more importantly, to understand statements that were relevant in a particular time and place, with a particular political and social system, with a people who used particular vocabulary for particular entities, and had situation specific options available to them in their historically bound situation you need to know that CONTEXT MATTERS.

I am going to say a line and I bet that you will know the who, what, when, where and be able to finish it for me.  Let’s try it out:
“Four score and seven years ago”
“Do not ask what your country can do for you.”
“There is nothing to fear”
“I have a dream, that one day”
“We the people in order to form a more perfect union.”

Imagine hearing these lines and not knowing the context.  Imagine trying to explain Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address without any reference to the Civil War. That would be what we often do with Jesus’ words – we try to understand and apply them without understanding the overriding historical context of first century Judaism, in Israel, and under the rule of the Roman empire.

We are going to be looking at the first sermon of Jesus in the oldest gospel we have and while as Christians we know that scripture is always relevant it is important to see how each part of scripture comes from a particular context yet has a universal horizon.  We are going to spend some time looking at the particular context of Jesus to better see the universal horizon, the Good News Platform of God.

For Christians it may not make sense why Rome was such a big deal religiously.  Remember Israel was the one true God’s chosen people.  They were given the vocation as a people to take their blessing from God and bless the whole world.  There are beautiful passages in the Hebrew scriptures where all the world comes to worship on God’s holy mountain, knowing that Yahweh is the one true God because of the way Israel lived in the world. Now imagine that instead of being the most blessed country in the world who is known globally for giving, sharing, and blessing others you are occupied by a ruthless Empire that keeps the people in poverty through taxation and the threat and implementation of military violence, your Temple is being controlled by Jewish leaders who bought into the Roman system in order to save their own skin, and your King Herod is a half-Jew who is not in the line of David, but got his power by eliminating competition (including his own son) and offering Caesar more money than anyone else.  The Jewish people may have been living in Israel, but when it comes to their vocation of global blessing they were still in exile.  Just like Eygpt and Babylon, the political domination system of the day had Israel at its beck and call.

In this situation a few prominent religious-political groups arose and they show up throughout the Gospels, so I thought I would give you some history to help you contextualize whenever they come up again.

Sadducees, Tax Collectors, and Herodians were “Your Best Life Now” Jews.  They compromised their faith and religious convictions in order to accommodate to Rome’s desires.  They were pragmatic, powerful, and successful at the expense of the other 99% of Israel.  The Sadducees in particular were the group who ran the Temple for Rome and supported Rome in the crucifixion of Jesus. Not so surprisingly, these groups were associated by most Jews as part of the problem.
Pharisees were your “Holy Rollers” of the first century.  Generally speaking they thought Israel as a whole needed to become a pure people and this attention to purity would initiate the coming of the Messiah who would settle the Rome and Temple problem.  Like the holy rollers of today, the purity issues they obsessed over where rarely their own.
Zealots knew Israel was occupied, that God didn’t want it this way, so they took up a motto, “The only Good Roman is a Dead Roman.”  Depending on which side you were on they were either terrorists or freedom fighters, but either way they believed that if Israel acted violently against Rome then God would join in this holy war of insurrection and clean house.
Essences were the end-of-the-world, chart-chasing, holy huddle from the first century.  They too thought the situation was bad, so bad they wanted everyone to leave the evil of the world behind and join a real holy community that kept itself separated from all that is secular, sinful, and wrong out there.  An Essence sermon was of the turn or burn variety, because they imagined that soon, very soon, in the twinkling of an eye, God was going to set things right by opening up a can of apocalyptic whoopin on everyone who isn’t a part of the holy huddle.

These four groupings of people were all contemporary religious and political platforms that first century Jews knew.  All of them were centered on answering the fundamental problem: how are we to be God’s people in a world that is dominated by an unjust, exploitive, and violent regime that rules the world while claiming a divine mandate.

Into this situation come John the Baptizer and Jesus.  With the context in our minds I am going to walk through this brief passage and try to illuminate the continuity and discontinuity between John and Jesus in hopes that we can end by hearing the single sentence zinger of a sermon by Jesus again and hear it for all it is worth.

There is debate about placing John among the four competing visions of Judaism mentioned above, but there is a strong consensus that he is most near the Essences.  I am going to summarize what we know from the historical record about John briefly.

John was an apocalyptic prophet, meaning he preached a turn or burn message about how the end was near and that you needed to get right with God or God is gonna get right with you through the use of fire.  In order to avoid this violent divine invasion of history John called people out into the desert and required people to fast until their skin sagged from lack of nourishment.  This act of prolonged fasting meant you knew how awful of a sinner you were, that you deserved what God was about to do to the world, and were repentant.  At this point you could be baptized in the Jordan for the forgiveness of sin.  While baptism was already a jewish ritual, its original function was to be purified so one could participate in worship at the Temple where the rites for the forgiveness of sin were performed.  Because John thought the Temple was corrupt and part of the problem he transforms a purity ritual into a Temple replacement.  This did not make those running the Temple nor Herod who collected money through the Temple happy.  On top of that John started preaching about Herod and ended up losing his head.  All in all, the platform of John was that God is on the move and about to get active in the world to correct the sinful and corrupt present.  You should be scared and fearful of God, because God is a wrathful Judge and one angry King.

Before we go on to look at Jesus let me ask you a question, how similar is your vision of God to that of John’s?  I know many people who are in the church because of fear and even more that won’t get near a steeple door because it represents a John style platform.  Judgement, Fear, and Fire.  Jesus clearly identified with John or he wouldn’t have sought him out, but it is important for us to see where they cohere and where they don’t

First, Jesus shares John’s criticism about the world as it is. Jesus is about to start talking about the kingdom of God being present while Rome imagines itself to be the ruling kingdom and in power because of the gods and he won’t stop talking about it until he is crucified on a Roman cross as a political revolutionary.  He was also critical of Herod (who tried to kill him as a baby) and the Temple system (where he put on a very rowdy demonstration).

Second, Jesus shared John’s affirmation of God’s in-breaking presence.  Jesus thought that God was active in history and in the process of making the kingdom of God an earthly reality.  And so Jesus says in our text, “The Time is Fulfilled…the kingdom of God is near” and he teaches us to pray that God’s kingdom come and will be done on earth as it is in heaven. The kingdom of God and its coming into a historical reality on earth is the central part of Jesus platform and part he shared with John.  Now let us look closely at the text and see how Jesus’ vision of God’s platform differed from John.

Listen to the text again: In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved;* with you I am well pleased.

What is shocking from the perspective of John is not that God tears apart the sky, that John was expecting.  But when the heavens are torn apart and God comes near we do not see flaming chariots, an angelic special ops team, or some Yahweh style Shock and Awe, but a dove, a symbol of peace.  And we do not hear the march of God’s apocalyptic army or a deep dark voice that roared like a fire, but the voice of one who identifies Jesus as the beloved, the voice of Abba.  From this moment to the cross Jesus no longer expected God to come with apocalyptic divine fury as John, but instead knew God in a more intimate and relational way, he knew God as Abba.  The dramatic contrasts in the ministry of Jesus and John are based here, in this moment where God breaks open the heavens to draw near to Jesus.  The imminent one whose kingdom he will announce is first the loving Abba who knows the names of all God’s children and it is the God who is the loving Abba whose reign is present, not wrathful judge.  The level of intimacy between God and Jesus causes a dramatic shift in the conceptual vision of God between John and Jesus.  Jesus did not keep this a secret; instead God being Abba forever shaped the ministry of Jesus and the life of Jesus.  To be a disciple of Jesus was to be committed in life and in prayer to God, sharing in the abba-intimacy of the Son.  For John God was first Judge and King, but for Jesus God is best known as abba, an intimate, loving, and caring parent.  The kind of person you want as King and Judge because you do not need to fear.  If we take the Jesus vision over the John vision then we too should see ourselves as the beloved of God and not only ourselves but everyone God has created.  This one change in the vision of God makes a huge difference when it comes the news being good or not. If God is Abba then the in-breaking of God’s kingdom is good news and fear-free.

Out of this experience and vision of God Jesus does two things differently.  These two things are not only markers of Jesus and his kingdom platform, but as Disciples of Christ they too should be markers of our faith and life together.

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.’

John was arrested and eventually killed by Herod, but Jesus did not stay on the margins of society pointing the finger of judgement at everyone while calling them out of the sinful world to get right with God, but instead Jesus went into Galilee.  Jesus traveled the country side preaching, teaching, healing, and feeding with a group nobodies.  John’s vision of God’s platform kept him on the margins of society, but Jesus’ vision sent him to the marginalized people.

If the Jesus platform leads him to go out, then we should to.  As a church we must make a shift from having an internal focus to an external focus.  The ministry of Jesus was always driven by those who were not a part of his inner-circle.  When he was with the hungry he fed them, the sick he healed them, the possessed he kicked some demons out, and in situation after situation Jesus the externally focused Jesus looked at the world out there and said, “what would Good News be to these people?” and then acted.  I know it can be surprising to us but Jesus’ method of church development was missional involvement.  By missional I mean, active and intentional participation in God’s mission, namely the coming of the kingdom of God and the doing of God’s will.  Jesus religion is externally focused, or as James the brother of Jesus put it, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Abba, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress.”

So the first shift which as the church we need to make is that from an internally focused ministry to an external one.  The second is just as important, namely the shift from a program driven ministry to a people focused community.  In his decision not to take up John’s post or start his own stationary healing ministry in Capernum (a Mark text Mike preached on a few weeks ago) Jesus is intentionally avoiding the establishment of a program driven ministry, either the come out and get baptized or the come here and get healed ministry.  This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t baptize or create places of healing, it just means that the setting up of a program is not the point, the people are.  Jesus was not going to set up a program and wait for God to send people his way. Jesus went to the people and called them to come and join God’s platform, God’s kingdom, God’s mission, and be a part of what God is doing in the world.

All around the country side Jesus went proclaiming “The Time is NOW, the Kingdom of God is here, Repent (or change if you translate it literally) and believe in the Good News!”   Does this audaciously hopeful message sound similar to anything?  A platform that is critical of those in power and the way the people in charge have been running things.  A strong affirmation that indeed things need to change and hope that they can.  I am not surprised that putting hope and change on repeat in political rhetoric is effective, but church it is a hijacked platform.

In a world with all kinds of things to be worried about, be it the ecological crisis, religious violence, terrorism, globalization, the growing gap between the rich and poor, the AIDs crisis in Africa, and the growing power of multi-national companies, the thing that worries me and I bet God the most is out-sourcing.  I am not talking about the out-sourcing of jobs, but the church.  The more the church is internally focused, not looking beyond itself, and continues spending the majority of its time and energy on itself and its own survival ,  the more people will turn elsewhere in search of agents of change.  And the more the church keeps working it programs while asking God to get the people, the more our institutions and our steeples will become a symbols of stagnation, the problematic normal AND NOT missional communities who bring God’s good news full of God size hope to the people.

Simply put, God’s good news platform is this:  Our God, the creator of every living person, sees each of us as God’s own beloved, created for reconciled communion with God.  This God, whom Jesus knew as Abba, wants to embrace you, change you, and give you an eternal hope….so that you can join Jesus in proclaiming and participating in the coming of God’s kingdom here on earth.  AMEN